Quality and Money

Tom.Glenn@tqm.permanet.org (Tom Glenn)

01 May 96 09:09:00 -0500

     In my announcement several days ago that I would close down
the TQM BBS, I mentioned my concern about making money in the
context of quality. Several people have asked what I meant. This
message is an attempt to answer those questioners.

     Abundance, in my view, is the natural state of the world. So
I certainly have no objection to making money. We should rejoice
in our wealth.

     The problem arises when making money assumes first priority.
More than once I heard Dr. Deming say that if you stress quality,
profits will take care of themselves. But if you stress profits,
quality will *not* take care of itself. Put differently, when
quality goes up, productivity and profits go up and costs come
down. When you put profit first, quality and productivity come
down, costs go up, and, ultimately, profits decline. We are all
worse off.

     I believe that I see at least three underlying and largely
unstated philosophic principles in the quality movement. The
first is profound respect for human beings. This respect is
manifest in the attention given to the customer who is and should
be the dominant figure in any business enterprise. The same
respect applies to people within the organization, the workers,
the internal customers. Quality managers know that quality
process improvement must come from the people who work in the
process. And use of teams, especially self-managing teams,
reflects enormous respect for people.

     The second principle is allegiance to the truth. This
principle expresses itself in the scientific approach to the
study and improvement of processes using the statistical tools
and the management/planning tools.

     The third principle is a belief in the power and rightness
of leadership and its antecedent, empowerment. The principle is
at the root of the insistence by any quality professional worth
his or her salt that quality must be led from the top.

     All three of these principles are seriously undermined by
American me-first-ism and its primary embodiment, seeking for
money. To the degree that money is the first consideration, then
damaging practices like cost-cutting and the use of fear (both
enemies of quality, according to Dr. Deming) to get more work for
less money are perfectly valid approaches.

     In my years in quality business, too often I have seen
organizations willing to hire me to make it *look* as though they
were embarking on the quality journey when in fact they had no
intention of doing so. These organizations were concerned with
short-term profitability. The look of quality was important to
them for that reason. But they were unwilling to invest their
time, leadership, or money in transforming themselves into
quality organizations. They wanted me to collude with them. I
always refused.

     Worse, when I refused to help in the pretense, other quality
professionals were quite happy to do so--for a fee. Too often,
quality professionals are willing to sell their services for a
price even when they know that the organizations hiring them will
not succeed. These same professionals are profoundly concerned
copyrights and patents to assure their work will not be used
without profit to themselves.

     Put in a larger context, I see the quality movement as one
(possibly the only) answer to America's economic (and to a
degree, moral) ills. We are threatened by our own complacency and
arrogance. Our me-first-ism (we call it "rugged individualism")
has led to poor quality goods and sloppy treatment of customers.
Our concern for short-term profits puts long-term quality at
risk. Other nations have been quick to take advantage of our
weakness.

     When quality professionals collude in quality failure to
make money, my sense of impending collapse becomes severe.

     I don't mean to imply that all companies and quality
professionals are guilty of these sins. Motorola, 
Hewlett-Packard, Xerox, Federal Express, and Campbell Soup come 
to mind as examples of quality companies who have done things 
right. Myron Tribus, Del Kimbler, and Jim Clauson are men who 
have given and given and given of their time and leadership an 
excellence for no purpose other than to change the world for the 
better. They have, to my knowledge, gained nothing for their 
generosity. All three, God bless them, even allow their writings 
to be posted on Internet for free. By the profit-first rules, 
these men are fools. By the quality rules, they are heroes. They 
have made a profound difference in the world.

     I turn sixty this year. I've given the best I had. Now it's
time for me to give full time and attention to writing.

     I know that many readers will disagree with much that I have
said here. I don't ask for agreement as much as for
understanding.

                  ====================================

                             Tom Glenn, DPA
                           SysOp, The TQM BBS
                              301-585-1164
                  Internet: tom.glenn@tqm.permanet.org
                            tom.glenn@den.permanet.org
                        Fax, voice: 301-565-8882
                             100 Hodges Lane
                       Takoma Park, Maryland 20912

                   ====================================
--
|PerMaNet       : Tom Glenn 11:202/299
|Internet       : Tom.Glenn@tqm.permanet.org
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

=========================================================================

Re: If you can't come yourself....

jwoods@execpc.com (John Woods)

Wed, 1 May 1996 08:59:19 -0500 (CDT)

Seri Ferguson wrote about the idea of CEO commitment and Deming's insistance
on the importance of this.  I would like to comment further on why I believe
this is crucial, especially at the beginning of the transition process.  

Human behavior is essentially adaptive.  We adapt to the environment in
which we find ourselves.  In organizations, the cultural environment to
which we adapt, for good or ill, is largely established by top management.
Since they are at the top, their behavior provides the cues that other
people need to figure out what's acceptable and what's not acceptable to get
ahead and to have "power."  If the CEO and others think internal competition
is good, people will compete with each other.  If the CEO blames individuals
when things go wrong, that's what everyone will do while also playing CYA
all the time.  And if the CEO really understands that the organization is a
system and that to manage that system effectively you must focus on
processes and their improvement, that's also what everyone will do.  

So, whether the CEO and other top managers are aware of it or not, they
create and help perpetuate the environment to which everyone else in the
organization will adapt.  This is an important responsibility, perhaps their
most important, and that is why they better get it right.  And as far as I
am concerned, getting it right means taking the systems view, focusing on
processes and their improvement, and all the other practices that naturally
fall out of the systems view.  Any other approach that is not consistent
with such ideas will help explain mediocre performance on the part of the
organization and unhappiness on the part of employees.  

I don't know if Deming explained things in this way, but this is clearly
what he had in mind I believe.  

John Woods
Author of QualiTrends: 7 Quality Secrets that Will Change Your Life (e-mail
me for more information)
jwoods@execpc.com

=======================================================================

Re: Ranking

Kromkowski@aol.com

Wed, 1 May 1996 16:59:27 -0400

In a message dated 96-05-01 01:35:17 EDT, Dan Schkolnik wrote:

>I certainly agree that it's easy to pick out either tail of the distribution
>of people's contributions to an organization.  My question is, what do 
>you do with all of the folks in the central area of the distribution?  How
>does one discern one shade of grey from the next?  What sort of system
>are you proposing?  Please share your thoughts.

Between the control limits produced by a system of whatever type, the values
should be treated as equivalent.  There is nothing to discern about any
individual differences, except to marvel at the reality of variation.  You
may also notice that, thankfully, none of us looks the same either. 

J.D.Kromkowski
Attorney at Law
The Jefferson Bldg.  -- Suite 103
105 W. Chesapeake Ave.
Towson, MD   21204

410-821-6116
also Kromkowski@aol.com

============================================================================

Re: From Grades in School to Salary Grades...any difference?

heeroh@mailbag.com (Heero Hacquebord)

Thu, 2 May 1996 11:04:09 -0500

>Dr. Deming said in Ch. 6 of The New Economics: (bold emphasis mine)
>
>tennis, one wins, one loses.  The same for poker, swimming match, high
<>>
>Have a Great Adventure!
>Don Kerr
>
>=============================================================================

Dr. Deming made a distinction between Ranking and Rating and Recognizing
Differences.  Ranking and Rating is when we split a distribution into
arbitrary parts, like percentiles, grades ect.  Recognizing differences is
recognizing different distributions.  This theory applies when dealing with
process data as well as with people.  Dr. Deming once said to me: "Equal
Educational Opportunity, What nonsense"  I said: "Dr. Deming, are you
saying that not all people can become physicians or engineers due to
differences in intellect" He replied: "But of Course".

 What we do is rank and rate when the differences are due to systemic
effects, and fail to recognize differences when these differences are due
to people effects. The former mistake is made by the traditional management
systems, the latter mistake is made by Deming proponents who do not yet
fully understand what Deming meant and taught.  It is true however, that
most differences we observe on the job, and in education come from one
distribution, which led Dr. Deming to say that the individual contributes
to a little as 4 % of what we observe in performance.

Learning, understanding and applying a System of Profound Knowledge will
help us minimize these two mistakes, and know how to recognize tha 4 % and
use this is promotions ect.

Happy Learning!

Heero Hacquebord
Consultant in Continual Improvement

=========================================================================

Re: Ranking and compensation systems

Downstrm@aol.com

Fri, 3 May 1996 10:38:36 -0400

The system that I was involved with looked at all people within the curve as
being part of the same system.  Our feeling was that in an organization of
our size(200-300 people) that the number of people outside the system where
actually very few in number(1-2 people) and that those few would be readily
identifiable.  For example the person that misses so much work that they fall
outside the limits of abseteeism looking at the whole company.  

The compensation system was then based on identifying the
skill/talents/abilities(i.e. job description) that an individual provides the
company.  This job description became the base document in the system.  Next
we determined whether the particular job was recruited locally(machinist),
regionally(product engineer), or nationally(VP or Director).  Based upon the
recruiting category we then selected the appropriate compensation survey,
either local, regional, or national and found the equivelent job description
and used the median value from the survey as our starting point.  We are
still not at the actual salary yet.  Next we adjusted the median value of the
salary to todays dollars depending on how old the survey info was.  This was
done using a standard annual inflation factor.  Once we arrived at this
number we then added 10% to it because we wanted to pay a premium for the
people in our organization.  The result of this process was the person's
total compensation.  

This was the process used for every person in the organization from machinist
to president, including the entire sales force.  We eliminated all bonuses,
commisions, and variable pay tied to any performance.  Each year every job in
the company was updated with new info from the latest surveys.  Compensation
was adjusted only if the market data showed a change. I outlined the employee
feedback system associated with this process a few months ago.  They must be
done in tandem to gain any benefit.

This system is not the end all of compensation systems.  There are many
issues with it that we were trying to deal with, but it did enable us to
eliminate the barriers presented by having a performance appraisel/merit
raise type of system which created all of the issues and problems that Deming
 argued to eliminate.  We considered this the first phase of at least a 3
phase process in developing a new compensation and employee feedback system.
 

A few of the problems we had not yet addressed.

What do you do when as a result of your internal cross training and
development that you can no longer find adequate matches for job descriptions
in the surveys?

The survey data is not consistently presented each year nor is it in chart
format so do the changes you see represent common or special cause?  This
might lead to various rules of the funnel?

The data is only annual so if you did chart it to determine common/special
cause and true shifts you would have to wait 7-8 years for a shift to be
validated?

These are but just a few of the issues we identified.  I would be interested
in some comments on the process and the issues.  No one ever said it would be
easy.



Mike Newman

downstrm@aol.com

===========================================================================

Short break for the DEN

clauson@deming.ces.clemson.edu (List Moderator Account)

Fri, 3 May 1996 11:10:42 -0400 (EDT)

DEN Subscribers:

We will have a short break in messages.  I will be leaving in a few minutes
to attend the 5th WEDI conference in DC and will be off-line til late Sunday
night.

Enjoy the quiet weekend - I'll "see you" in your inboxes Monday morning.

BTW - for those of you that responded to Tom Glenn's posting, I have
sent them directly to Tom.  Thanks for your comments.

I'll also send out a WEDI activities update early next week.

All4now,

Jim Clauson
DEN Moderator 

=======================================================================

-- 

Re: Values and Performance Evaluations

Downstrm@aol.com

Fri, 3 May 1996 09:54:30 -0400

My intent was only to address the issue of raises directly associated to
evaluation systems and not to look at the bigger picture of promotion
relative to an evaluation process.  If I may think aloud for a minute it
seems that Dan(PDX) has highlighted an interesting scenario.  Dr. Deming was
supportive of evaluation to determine where people might need improvement and
to help a leader optimize and best use the people that he/she has on their
team.  Evaluation for promotion is another process that should help identify
whether an individual has the tools and/or capability to be a leader in the
Deming sense.  Unfortunately, with the promotion, ususally comes a raise.
 How does one prevent the process of identifying people for promotion without
covertly/accidentally putting in place another form of performance appraisel?
 

I would be very interested in hearing some comments.


Mike Newman

=========================================================================

Ranking

"Patrick Owings"

Fri, 3 May 96 18:58:59 UT

Heero Haquebord wrote:
>What we do is rank and rate when the differences are due to systemic
>effects, and fail to recognize differences when these differences are due
>to people effects. The former mistake is made by the traditional management
>systems, the latter mistake is made by Deming proponents who do not yet
>fully understand what Deming meant and taught.  It is true however, that
>most differences we observe on the job, and in education come from one
>distribution, which led Dr. Deming to say that the individual contributes
>to a little as 4 % of what we observe in performance.

>Learning, understanding and applying a System of Profound Knowledge will
>help us minimize these two mistakes, and know how to recognize tha 4 % and
>use this is promotions ect.

Thank you, Heero!  You are so very right in your observation. You have 
restored my faith in the ability of some to understand what Dr. Deming meant 
when he talked about these issues.  I am certain that I am not alone in my 
frustration when I hear Dr. Deming's great wisdom being corrupted by 
well-meaning executives, educators, and others because there is, somehow, 
little or no understanding of what Dr. Deming was attempting to teach us.  An 
educator told me only yesterday that there are "anti-Deming books out" that 
advance the notion that "this Deming stuff about everyone being the same is 
dumbing-down our educational system."  I replied, "My friend, the educational 
system is indeed dumbed-down, but Dr. Deming had nothing to do with it.  It is 
the result of a failure to take the time to gain understanding and knowledge 
of Dr. Deming's philosophy that has many things dumbed-down.  Everyone IS NOT 
the same.  He never said they were!"

Some of our intellectually elite get through higher education because they 
have the amazing ability to memorize and regurgitate vast amounts of data or, 
maybe, information.  But, as Dr. Deming said, "That's not learning, that's 
memorizing!"  One cannot rely on simple memorization of terms and definitions 
of SoPK and The 14 Points, and then rush out and implement the Deming 
Philosophy.  As Dr. Deming was fond of saying, "AH! That requires KNOWLEDGE!"

One final point:  Dr. Deming was usually brief and to the point in 
articulating his philosophy.  He seemingly avoided laborious, detailed 
explanations, and I fear that this may sometimes result in misapplication and 
apparent failure of his philosophy in the eyes of some.  It is up to those who 
know his philosophy works when properly applied to teach the rest (and you do 
it very well, Heero).   

===========================================================================

Re: In God we trust, all others bring data.

"Anton O. Tolman, Ph.D."

Fri, 03 May 1996 14:56:07 -0700 (MST)

On April 12, Myron Tribus wrote:

> The solution,  INMHO,  is to establish good systems for data acquisition.  I am
> not enough involved in health care to know,  but is there a mechanism for the
> gathering of data and,  if so,  to whom are the results available?
> 

Myron:

I didn't see another response to your question, so thought I would 
jump in and display my ignorance openly.  

"Health care" is a huge and complex field.  The old model of health 
care was fee-for-service, individual providers working with patients 
who chose them and providing them with service.  This model is 
virtually gone now, replaced by providers who are contracted to 
multiple corporations encharged with "managing" the care that is 
provided.  In the old days, medical and other providers were 
privileged to work within hospital settings and used the hospitals as 
bases for certain services that could not be provided outpatient.  
Now the hospitals are often branches of large medical corporations, 
HMO's, or Managed Care companies that operate with their providers in 
a manner similar to that provided with outpatient providers.  This 
model continues to change and evolve, driven by legislative and 
economic pressures.  

How is health care quality measured in this system?  Everyone has 
their own way of doing it.  If you listen to the providers who are 
expressing concern about the managed care system, you hear one set of 
statistics and data that tends to be collected ad hoc or sometimes in 
an organized fashion by guild-lead associations or discipline-
specific organizations.  Data is also collected by hospitals, 
coporations, and managed care organizations, but their data and 
definitions of what constitutes "quality" health care are diverse and 
just as politically charged as the definitions of the guild groups, 
typically focusing on cost issues and number of visits, length of 
hospitalization, etc.  

At the same time, internally, hospitals and other health-care service 
delivery organizations have their own CQI processes in place that may 
examine specific data sets regarding processes internal to them; more 
and more companies are gradually adding elements of "customer 
satisfaction" than used to be the case.  

So, my return question to you is which system do you want to know 
about?  Do you have any ideas or does anyone else out there have any 
ideas about how to produce a unified system for data acquisition so 
that some data-based (I almost said objective, but then realized that 
there is no such thing) decisions could be made by those involved in 
guiding the future of health care in this country?


________________________________
Anton O. Tolman, Ph.D.
Director, Psychological Services
Director, Program Services
Wyoming State Hospital
P.O. Box 177
Evanston, WY  82931-0177
Anton@wsh.state.wy.us
(307) 789-3464
---------------    

===========================================================================

System or Individual?

RonDavison@aol.com

Fri, 3 May 1996 19:34:32 -0400

In regards to the effect of individual efforts  vs. the effect of a system,
consider this.

Newsweek recently reported on the "Flynn effect."  Apparently, a researcher
has documented a fairly well agreed upon rise in IQs.  IQs have risen nearly
30 points in the UK since 1948 and nearly that much in the US since 1918.
 The rise apparently holds for every country.

I have two reactions to that.  One is the quote "We've learned that
measurement doesn't track performance -- performance tracks measurement."
 People, having learned what constitutes "smart" are now putting more effort
into meeting that criteria.

Secondly, this does reinforce my belief about the importance of a system.
 Assume that two children, equally inquisitive, are born into two worlds.  In
world one (say Europe of 1400), the child never leaves the confines of his
village, is given superstitous prattle as answers to questions, and has next
to no practice with theories.  In world two, the child is continually exposed
to nature, to videos, computer simulations, practices formulating and testing
theories, reads copious amounts, travels and learns about completely
different cultures, etc., etc.  Which child will be "more intelligent" as
judged by nearly any evaluation of his conversation, his writings, his scores
on IQ tests?

People who fail to appreciate what a pervasive and powerful effect systems
have on our potential are generally people who fail to appreciate history.
 Personally, I doubt that our species has undergone any biological evolution
during the last few millenium.  Yet we live longer, know more, sing better
and have more teeth.

Can making a change to the system really make a profound difference in the
individual?  Perhaps not.  But it does make a profound difference in all his
relationships.  And for me, that is where the individual "occurs."

I realize that I'm preaching to the choir, but as a group, we still have to
shift the focus of a community still struck by the vast differences in our
current distribution -- rather than the even greater differences in
distributions across time.

--
Ron Davison (RonDavison@aol.com) 

=========================================================================

Re: From Grades in School to Salary Grades...any difference?

Martin Charles Raff

Sat, 04 May 1996 07:16:04

>Dr. Deming made a distinction between Ranking and Rating and Recognizing
>Differences.  Ranking and Rating is when we split a distribution into
>arbitrary parts, like percentiles, grades ect.  Recognizing differences is
>recognizing different distributions.  This theory applies when dealing with
>process data as well as with people. 
>

Hero

I do not understand the implications of what you are say here. Does
'recognising the differences' in people mean that organisations
should value them differently? Would this not lead straight back
into 'Ranking and Rating'?

Martin Raff
VISTA Consulting - for a better future
martin@vistaraff.win-uk.net
phone and fax: +44-1789 840418

===========================================================================

Re: Values and Performance Evaluations

LNUSPTH1.WZ33XG@gmeds.com

Mon, 6 May 96 13:52:23 EDT

With regard to the posting by Mike Newman.

One difference between a promotion and ratings is the type of scarcity.  The 
promotion 
into another job is limited to one job and one person selected.  The judgment 
of a 
rating is artificial.  I would like all the people to both feel and be 
important, valuable and
trusted.

 You could rate Nobel prize winners from brightest to dullest but why?  
Why is it not enough to say they are all bright and valuable?  Would the one
rated the highest then work harder than the others?  I may be able
to make a prediction of which Nobel laureate is the most useful to seek advice
on a give topic but not which is most valuable to the world.  By the 
same token I may be able to predict which employee is best suited
to a task or assignment by not which employee is most valuable to the 
organization.

Jack Jordan

==============================================================================

Re: From Grades in School to Salary Grades...any difference?

"Kerr, Donald"

Mon, 6 May 1996 14:46:00 -0700

Rely to Heero Hacquebord and the rest of you...

Thank you for  responding to my desire for "happy learning" on this
question.  I appreciate your constructiveness and not judgement as I
explore many direct,indirect, and rhetorical questions.

Why eliminate ranking & grades and not salary grades or promotion ranks?
If we eliminate one without the other will we have truly addressed the
fundamental problem? How are they different?  If not, what is the
fundamental issue or problem?  Is rating and grading 4% of the time for
promotion and salary in one distribution  any different than ranking or
grading 100% in another larger one?

Can you separate the individual from the system at all?  Can you
separate "Individuals" (word itself means to divide) from other
individuals?  If I am a Deming proponent who does not yet fully
understand what Deming meant and taught, what does that say about the
system I (we) are a part of?  Has it or its method been defined
optimally?  Am I alone...a special cause?  Am I a "hack?" How do I know?
When will I know when I fully understand what Deming meant?  Who does? 
Did He (with all due respect)?  What part of the intellect distribution
do I fall in?  Are you saying that not all people can become physicians,
engineers, or "Deming Masters?"  Where can I take the Deming Master IQ
test now, so I don't waste any more time?  How can the Deming community
help to mimimize the two mistakes you referred to?  What is it that I'm
missing here?  Am I a special cause needing eliminated...or am I just a
courageous common cause?  If a special cause, who is my Deming manager
responsible for the elimination of special causes?

All open ended questions and fun aside (maybe):

>From your post, I take it that the answer depends on what distribution
or distributions we are talking about and our ability to predict
percentage of contribution of them.

I'd like to ask more about your comment:

< What we do is rank and rate when the differences are due to systemic

[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             

WEDI Update
clauson@deming.ces.clemson.edu (List Moderator Account)
Tue, 7 May 1996 03:04:47 -0400 (EDT)
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              
For those of you who made the WEDI Conference this past weekend, it was good
to put a face with an e-mail address.

For those of you who missed it - you missed a great learning experience!

We had a general session on adult learning (which I will summarize and 
send out to the DEN)

We had 10 great sessions in the "Trainer's Exchange" - interactive activities
to help training some of Deming's philosophy.  I will be placing these on the
Clemson web site  -and- sending them to the DEN for comments and ideas, both
from those that attended these sessions and those who may be familiar with
the exercises.  I will summarize these comments and place them with the
original exercises on the web site.

We also had a number of small break-outs on a variety of topics, although many
related to SoPK.  I would encourage attendees who attended these discussion
groups to share the various models and notes you gleaned from the sessions 
that you attended.

I'll keep with my one-screen message length rule and send more later.

Jim Clauson
DEN Moderator

=============================================================================
 



 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              

Re: Ranking
Don Clarke 
Tue, 07 May 1996 08:24:50 -0700
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             
> Heero Haquebord wrote:
> >What we do is rank and rate when the differences are due to systemic
> >effects, and fail to recognize differences when these differences are due
> >to people effects. The former mistake is made by the traditional management
> >systems, the latter mistake is made by Deming proponents who do not yet
> >fully understand what Deming meant and taught.  It is true however, that
> >most differences we observe on the job, and in education come from one
> >distribution, which led Dr. Deming to say that the individual contributes
> >to a little as 4 % of what we observe in performance.
> 
> >Learning, understanding and applying a System of Profound Knowledge will
> >help us minimize these two mistakes, and know how to recognize tha 4 % and
> >use this is promotions ect.
> ===============================================
I understand Heero to say:  Those who fully understand what Deming meant and 
thought can recognize differences [in performance of a job?] that are due to 
people effects.  And we can rank and rate those differences.  

I recall that Dr. Deming said that such differences (1) had to be over a long 
period of time and (2) had to be measurably different from those of other 
people.  But I have not seen exactly how to do this.  

Am I right in my recollection? and, if so, what procedures would one use to 
set some people apart from others for, for example, promotions?

=========================================================================



[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             

Re: In God we trust, all others bring data.
aalassaf@REX.RE.uokhsc.edu (Al F Al-assaf )
Tue, 7 May 1996 13:44:58 -0500 (CDT)
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             
Dr. Anton Tolman askes about what kind of a system is needed to
standardize data acquisition, so that everybody can be compared to one
another based on similar data variables?  The recent literature and the
current moves by the "purchasers" of healthcare which is being followed by the
regulators/accrediting agencies especially in the managed care arena, REPORT
CARDS seem to be the answer.  These organizations are designing profiles on
participating HMO's and Providers in regards to members (patients) reactions
to the care received e.g. access, satisfaction, wellness, expectations,
specific clinical outcomes, complications, administrative competency,
esthetics, etc. as well as quality of care and utilization data e.g. average
length of stays, appropriateness of treatment to the disease, appropriateness
of procedures, utilization AND quality of referrals, clinical competency
indicators to certain procedures or care, immunization coverage rate,
preventive screening procedures (mamography, cholestrol, protinurea, BPH,..),
etc.  These report cards are becoming very common in the industry and NCQA
(an organization that accredits HMO's) is in the midst of a big pilot project to 
formulize a standard report card for the HMO industry with national "norms". 
It is my understanding that they would like to implement such a system at
each HMO for the purpose of accreditation and continuous quality improvement.

I know we are still a long way off the desired system but at least some
large purchasers organizations like Xerox, GTE, Marriott, Pepsico, USAIRetc.) 
are working on it (Barron's 3/4/1996 and Business Week 4/8/1996).
  
Let's keep the hope alive!

A. Al Assaf, MD, CQA
University of Oklahoma
al-assaf@uokhsc.edu 

===========================================================================


[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             

Yet another break!
clauson@deming.ces.clemson.edu (List Moderator Account)
Wed, 8 May 1996 02:54:10 -0400 (EDT)
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              
DEN subscribers,

To allow those who attended the WEDI to get their notes together on the 
SoPK group discussions - I will be taking a few days off.  Not for my self,
of course, but for others...  ;-)

I'll be back on the net late Friday and will get y'all caught up.

Jim Clauson
DEN Moderator

==========================================================================

-- 



 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              

Re: Ranking
heeroh@mailbag.com (Heero Hacquebord)
Wed, 8 May 1996 15:03:36 -0500
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]              
[First by author]              
>I understand Heero to say:  Those who fully understand what Deming meant and
>thought can recognize differences [in performance of a job?] that are due to
>people effects.  And we can rank and rate those differences.
>
>I recall that Dr. Deming said that such differences (1) had to be over a long
>period of time and (2) had to be measurably different from those of other
>people.  But I have not seen exactly how to do this.
>
>Am I right in my recollection? and, if so, what procedures would one use to
>set some people apart from others for, for example, promotions?
>
>=========================================================================

 You are right, it takes a long period of time to recognize differences ,
if any.  There exists no procedure for doing so.  Knowledge comes from
theory, and as far as promotions are concerned Dr. Deming implied that it
would be about the same as you deciding which physician to select.  From
recomendations from people who you could trust.

Heero

===========================================================================



[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]              
[First by author]              

Re: From Grades in School to Salary Grades...any difference?
Julie Beedon 
Wed, 08 May 1996 20:54:06
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             
I have enjoyed Don's dialogue with Heero - it has been very
enlightening and worht reading the sometimes long postings!!
 

>One step further out in scope...
>
>What if any, are the social parallels to the red bead experiment?  Are
>we all good willing humans in a system that determines 96% of behavioral
>performance? If that is the case, who invented the system? Who is
>responsible to change it?
>If structure influences behavior,  to what degree does it determine it? 
>Should I focus on the system or the individual?  Should Government focus
>on the system? Who should focus on the individual?  How can they be
>separated?  Can I separate the alcoholic from the bottle or Budweiser?  
> Can I separate the wife-battering football player from the sport?  Can
>I separate the violent child from the TV & media?  Can I separate the
>gang member from the hood?  Can I separate the welfare recipient from
>the welfare system? Can I separate the cult member from the cult?  Can I
>separate the individual from the behavior?  Understanding this, does
>this allow us to be more compassionate?  Not to judge...but to lead?
>

I thought these were good questions and one of the most
understandable anwers to this type of question came in a theology
book I was reading some time ago by Walter Wink (Engaging the
Powers) the whole book is threaded with great systems thinking. 
He quotes a Russian poet on this topic of individuals and system -
people create borders and then borders create people.

People create systems and to some extent we have to rely on people
somewhere to change them - but we can change systems without people
changing - did the abolition of slavery make people less racist? 
So we cannot reduce it completely either way to individuals or to
systems and we have to design our actions to take account of
both!!  Also systems are often manfestations of individual  'sin'
(for want of a better word) so a system full of proud people
exibits cultural patterns of pride - a system full of greedy
people exhibits patterns of greed ... or systems based on greedy
influnce people to manifest sins of greed..... we cannot seperate
people from systems so we have to act on both and Deming was
taking account of this when he said executive have to work on the
sytem - it willnot happen by accident!! 

Julie Beedon
VISTA Consulting - for a better future
julie@vistabee.win-uk.net

==========================================================================



[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             

Re: In God we trust, all others bring data.
Mstoeck@aol.com
Wed, 8 May 1996 21:40:09 -0400
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             
The question asked by Myron Tribus "...is there a mechanism for gathering of
(healthcare) data and, if so, to whom are the results available?"  is one we
have been struggling with.  I work in a healthcare system, and much of the
efforts such as "report cards" could probably be added to Dr. Deming's list
of the "usual suggestions for improvement of quality" (page 14 of New
Economics, 2nd Ed.).  You could also add "outcomes measurement" and "outcomes
management".  Dr. Anton Tolman also asked about the kind of system needed to
standardize data aquisition.

Any system of data collection and evaluation would depend upon the underlying
assumptions that are held by the system designers.  Most of the assumptions I
have seen come primarily from a deterministic world.  There is no
understanding of variation, little appreciation for a system and no
understanding of the interaction of forces.  When you cut through the
retoric, most payors wish to rank the outcomes from highest to lowest.  Only
skills are required.

It might be helpful to consider what Dr. Deming said about performance
evaluations and see how that may apply to evaluating the performance of
hospitals, physicians or other providers.  I am thinking of his quote from
Mr. Norb Keller (page 115 of New Economics, 2nd Ed.) "It is easy to miss the
point that even if a method were developed to rank people with precision and
certainty, distinct from the process that they work in, why would anyone
suppose that this would improve people or the process?"  Similarly, if anyone
were to try to devise a system to study the variation produced by different
healthcare providers and processes, their efforts must by guided by Profound
Knowledge.   Merely ranking and rating different institutions will not
improve the quality of healthcare.  It will only dig deeper the pit we are
already in.

===========================================================================


 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             

Deming Questions # 13
gogue@chailly.ensmp.fr (GOGUE J.M. Societe MAST 39 50 99 67)
Fri, 10 May 96 15:28:23 +0200
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             


--------------------------  DEMING QUESTIONS  -------------------------- 

A weekly paper including a set of questions copied in the Deming book 
OUT OF THE CRISIS   Chapter 5.  Questions to Help Managers.

By Jean-Marie Gogue

-----
# 13
-----

1.  (No 25 in the Book) - Pride of workmanship

What is your plan and what are you doing about it for removal of barriers 
that rob the hourly worker of his pride of workmanship?

COMMENTS
The question may be extended to everybody you deal with in such a way that 
you have some influence on his (her) work. For instance those you can help 
are your children, your pupils if you are a teacher, the employees you meet 
in a gas station, a restaurant, an airport, etc. 
 
-----

2.  (No 26 in the Book) - The emptiness of goals and exhortations

Do you plaster your walls with goals and exhortations?
If yes, what are you doing to supplant them with news about activity of 
your management to reduce the barriers that rob the hourly worker of his 
pride of workmanship?

COMMENTS
Deming suggests another type of information to display on your walls instead 
of goals and exhortations. It is explaining what management is doing month 
by month to purchase better quality of incoming materials, better maintenance, 
or to provide better training (Out of the Crisis, p. 69).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jean-Marie Gogue
President
The French Deming Association
Versailles   France
gogue@ensmp.fr

===========================================================================


[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Re: From Grades in School to Salary Grades...any difference? (fwd)
heeroh@mailbag.com (Heero Hacquebord)
Wed, 8 May 1996 15:47:24 -0500
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]              
[First by author]              
>effects from people effects at all in this ONE distribution.  Please
>indulge me in modifying Dr. Deming's  expression (oversimplified as it
>may be):
>
>(4%)X+ (96%)YX = Individual Performance Objective ($,schedule,
>goal,behavior, etc)
>
>       X= Individual's Performance
>       YX= Effect of the System on the individual's performance X
>
>Because there are two unknowns and only one equation, I cannot solve for
>X.  I cannot determine or judge the individual's performance or
>behavior.  I cannot separate the individual performance from the system.
> I cannot separate the willing worker from the system.  Some of the
>willing worker is in X and in YX.  How much of the 4% is in X or YX?
>
>Don Kerr
>
>p.s.  My Great Adventure (well OK, my beautiful wife) is about to bring
>me a new baby boy!  See you in a week or so.
>

Let me try this summary:

Starting with your equation which is consistent with what Dr. Deming described.

(4%)X+ (96%)YX = Z  (Individual Performance Objective ($,schedule,
>> >goal,behavior, etc)

We study the behavior Z over time.  If this is common cause, then making
comparisons in the numbers by ranking them high to low, or a A, B ---ect
would be ranking.  If we identify a special cause at a particular point in
time in the behavior of a Z, then we must explain this special cause.
Explanation of this special cause may lead to the recognition of a
difference between this special cause and the rest of the system that
produced the Z's.  When we have data it is easy to do by applying
statistical theory.  It is when we do not have data that we have to figure
some method of making judgments over time.

Heero

===========================================================================




 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]              
[First by author]              

Re: The Aim of a System
Eugene Taurman 
Sat, 11 May 1996 08:49:32 -0500 (CDT)
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
The aim of the organization is estaboished by the questions asked by the CEO.

People with in the organization decide what is important to the organization
by the measurements acted up on by their bosses. 

The primary route for establishing systme aim si  by the meeting agendas of
the person in charge. What ever the staff is required to report on they will
spend thier time preparing to present and discuss. If the agenda relates to
labor cost then the priortiy of the manager will be unit efficiency and
keeping people working. If the questions drive him or her to understand
quality then that will be the priority. If the agenda is about system
effectiveness of serving the customer then the energy will eventually be
directed to that end.

The aim of the system is determined by the measures actually used by
management. 

What ever the inner vision of the people in charge will be the focus or aim
whether they have a stated vision or not.


>
>
Eugene Taurman
interLinx
ilx@execpc.com
http://www.execpc.com/~ilx

	ATTITUDE IS CAUSED BY WHAT MANAGERS DO OR DO NOT ACT UPON.
	     CULTURE IS THE SUM OF THE INDIVIDUAL ATTITUDES
=============================================================================



[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Doctoral Studies in Profound Knowledge
Jonathan Siegel 
Mon, 13 May 1996 15:44:48 GMT
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

I would appreciate forwarding this message to the Deming Electronic Network:

I am a student, currently with a Master's degree in Statistics, interested
in a doctoral program in which I can study Dr. Deming's System of Profound
Knowledge (preferrably as a whole) and, after appropriate study, do research
in some aspect of it. I have been given to understand there is no direct
Deming-oriented Doctoral program, so I would hope to find a program with
enough flexibility to let me work with a Deming-trained teacher during the
curriculum phase and to do a dissertation on a Deming-related topic with
appropriate people on my committee. 

I would appreciate advice on any doctoral program (in any field) that would
let me pursue a Deming orientation. Because of my background and interests,
I would be especially interested in a program permitting me to gain
background in statistical studies, ideally in the broad sense Dr. Deming
meant by this term.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Siegel
jmsiegel.info.research@worldnet.att.net
(616) 383-9009
Jonathan 

=========================================================================


[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

 Looking for a seminar
INA@MAGPAGE.COM
Sat, 11 May 96 06:20:17 EDT
 [Topic List]                          
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
I have been tasked by my boss to get formal training in 
Deming. I am looking for an introductory type of seminar.
Do you know of anything?

Thanks,
Ina

Message posting through the Clemson CQI Web Server.

[Moderator's note:  Please copy the sender on any responses and they are not
subscribed to the DEN.   Thanks,   Jim Clauson]

=============================================================================





 [Topic List]                          
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

#13
jkaliste@skipjack.bluecrab.org
Wed, 15 May 1996 17:22:14 -0400 (EDT)
[Next of thread]             
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
        I feel Dr. Deming's SoPk is in antithesis.  On our walls are
"Quality" slogans.  The people responsable feel they are doing the right
thing,  spreading the word, etc..  I do not feel they should be condemned 
for this. 
         True, it it not my system.  It is time to drop referances (slogans) to 
TQM, for it has become universal .  Now is the time to stop grading people on 
technical "flaws",and facilitate movement to higher levels of Knowledge.  Whom 
did Dr. Deming authorize to rank others?
        Total Quality has become what is not, a slogan.  Please read point #10.
        This is a good sign.  SoPk can be unrealized, but not denied.  Would
it be better to have it practiced somewhat out of focus, or unpracticed?
Management has a will of it's own.

                                    Thanks,
                                    John  
jkaliste@skipjack.bluecrab.org

=========================================================================



[Next of thread]             
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

DEMING PAPERS (fwd)
clauson@deming.ces.clemson.edu (List Moderator Account)
Thu, 16 May 1996 11:30:27 -0400 (EDT)
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              
Peter,

The WEDI (W. Edwards Deming Institute) has about 70 articles written by
Dr. Deming.  To get a list and ordering information contact Bill
Ratcliff at ratcliff@radix.net.

Jim Clauson
DEN Moderator

Forwarded message:
> From den.list-request@deming.ces.clemson.edu Wed May 15 07:25:47 1996
> X-Envelope-From: nobody@deming.ces.clemson.edu  Wed May 15 07:25:35 1996
> Date: Wed, 15 May 96 07:25:33 EDT
> Message-Id: <9605151125.AA12396@deming.eng.clemson.edu.eng>
> From: peter.savage@Sunderland.ac.uk
> To: den.list@deming.ces.clemson.edu
> Subject:  DEMING PAPERS
> 
> I would be grateful for any information that anyone has on how to obtain copies of papers that were written by Dr Deming.  Please send details to my e-mail location.
> 
> Many Thanks 
> 
> Peter Savage
> 
> University of Sunderland
> 
> England
> 
> Message posting through the Clemson CQI Web Server.
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 

 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              

Re: The Aim of a System
Steve 
Thu, 16 May 1996 06:08:45 +0
[Next of thread]              
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
Eugene Taurman says:

> The aim of the organization is estaboished by the questions asked by the CEO.
> 
> People with in the organization decide what is important to the organization
> by the measurements acted up on by their bosses. 
> 
> The primary route for establishing systme aim si  by the meeting agendas of
> the person in charge. What ever the staff is required to report on they will
> spend thier time preparing to present and discuss. If the agenda relates to
> labor cost then the priortiy of the manager will be unit efficiency and
> keeping people working. If the questions drive him or her to understand
> quality then that will be the priority. If the agenda is about system
> effectiveness of serving the customer then the energy will eventually be
> directed to that end.
> 
> The aim of the system is determined by the measures actually used by
> management. 
> 
> What ever the inner vision of the people in charge will be the focus or aim
> whether they have a stated vision or not.
> 
> Eugene Taurman
> interLinx
> ilx@execpc.com
> http://www.execpc.com/~ilx
> 
> 	ATTITUDE IS CAUSED BY WHAT MANAGERS DO OR DO NOT ACT UPON.
> 	     CULTURE IS THE SUM OF THE INDIVIDUAL ATTITUDES
> =============================================================================

I know that it is bad Internet etiquette to copy a message in full in
a reply but I think that the above is a vital point which is
completely misunderstood by most CEOs.  

I have had a CEO say to me that his customers are the shareholders.
He hires people to look after the real customers but his job is to
look after the shareholders.  Implicit in this is that he has no real
interest in the product as long as it makes money.  

A related concept which is also misunderstood by senior managers is
the idea of 'peripheral vision'.  So often when big costly mistakes
are analysed, we hear people say that they could never have predicted
the outcome.  It was just bad luck, they were trying something new
and it went tragically wrong. 

The harder you drive people, the more they get 'tunnel vision' - just
concentrating on the immediate task and the most pressing aim.  As
Eugene Taurman points out, the real aim is usually efficiency not
quality, so nomatter what policy statements or posters around the
workplace say, quality risks are bound to get ignored.

If  we are going to improve efficiency AND quality, we need people to
have 'peripheral vision'. New ideas to cut costs should be tried out
but it is important that people get uncomfortable when untested
changes are being introduced on a big scale.  The only way that this
can be achieved is for the senior manages to show that they are
genuinely interested in the qualtiy of the product. 

They should also seek to get more out of the system by improving it,
not just driving it harder. 


--
============================================
steve@horn.demon.co.uk
Bo'ness, West Lothian, Scotland, U.K.
============================================

=========================================================================


[Next of thread]              
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Re: Ranking
"Joseph E. Kasser" 
Tue, 14 May 1996 14:33:21 -0400 (EDT)
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             
given a set of recomended physisians from people you trust, how do you
decide which one to employ without ranking them?
:)
Joe

=========================================================================



[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             

Re: Doctoral Studies in Profound Knowledge
aalassaf@REX.RE.uokhsc.edu (Al F Al-assaf )
Tue, 14 May 1996 11:46:47 -0500 (CDT)
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
Although we do not have a specific program on the Deming theories and
practices, our program at the University of Oklahoma health Sciences Center
offer a DrPH in Health Services Admin.  I am the faculty that teach
Healthcare Quality Management with emphasis on Dr. Deming's teachings. 
Please let me know of your interest in such a program.  You can contact me
at (405)271-2114 or at al-assaf@uokhsc.edu


A. F. Al-Assaf, MD, CQA
University of Oklahoma 
Health Sciences Center
P.O.Box 26901
OK City, OK 73190

===========================================================================



 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Deming applied to Real Estate?
clauson@deming.ces.clemson.edu (List Moderator Account)
Thu, 16 May 1996 13:12:11 -0400 (EDT)
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              
We got a call from someone needing information on the application
of Deming principles and philosophy to the area of real estate
sales.

Anyone have any experience or thoughts on this application?

Jim Clauson
DEN Moderator

====================================================================
-- 



[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              

DEN Addressing info
clauson@deming.ces.clemson.edu (List Moderator Account)
Thu, 16 May 1996 13:24:06 -0400 (EDT)
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              
I occasionally get questions about which address is which for the DEN.
Please save the following message for future use.

The DEN has 3 addresses:  a command address, a posting address, and a 
moderator address.

Command Address:  den.list-request@deming.eng.clemson.edu
===============

The command address is for messages that include subscribe, unsubscribe,
change to digest mode, etc.

Posting Address:  den.list@deming.eng.clemson.edu
================

The posting address is used to send a message to all 500 +/- subscribers.

Moderator Address:  clauson@deming.eng.clemson.edu
=================

This is the direct address for yours truly - for issues you feel need my 
direct attention.

NOTE:  The .eng. -vs- .ces. addressing problems seem to be resolved and
either address format should work.

I hope this helps.

Jim Clauson
DEN Moderator
 
=========================================================================



 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              

Re: Deming applied to Real Estate?
"David T. Novick" 
Thu, 16 May 96 11:21:57 PST
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
     
     
     On 5/16 the list moderater stated:
     
     We got a call from someone needing information on the application
     of Deming principles and philosophy to the area of real estate
     sales.
     
     Anyone have any experience or thoughts on this application?
     
     ************************************
     
     
     I am not certain this will completely answer the question, but when we 
     were looking at new homes some three years ago, my wife received a 
     brochure from a builder in Southern California who applied the 
     principles of TQM in his business.  The company name was Fieldstone.  
     In the bulletin, there was considerable information on how this 
     quality improvement program was leading to the definition of more 
     desirable and better quality homes.  I do not recall if any of 
     Deming's principles were applied but it would be worthwhile looking 
     into.  The corporate offices of Fieldstone are in Newport Beach, CA.
     
     David Novick
     dtnovick@anet.rockwell.com

========================================================================


[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Re: Mission, Vision and Values
"Anton O. Tolman, Ph.D." 
Thu, 16 May 1996 12:14:50 -0700 (MST)
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              
On April 23, Robert Crow posted:

>Likewise it is necessary for
> organization to periodically revisit their roots to determine if they are
> getting away from their original purpose.
> 
> To sum up.  If you are going to take the time to develop mission, vision,
> and values, there should also be a commitment that these are going to be
> used as anchors against which all future decisions will be measured.
> Otherwise it is simply an exercise which will have little value to the
> organization.  Management has the responsibility to see that these are
> living documents not pieces of paper or a plaque hanging on a wall.
> 

Sorry for getting back to this so late.  I wholeheartedly agree that 
a well-developed mission, vision, and set of guiding principles are 
essential to helping an organization attain constancy of purpose.  
These should become tools that are used in the orientation and 
training of new employees and should be referred to often as the 
basis for executive decisions.  

The only concern I have about Robert's post is that the revisiting of 
the organization's mission and vision needs to include review of 
whether that is still the direction the company wants to go.  There 
is a wonderful videotape, I think it is called, "The Importance of 
Vision" or something similar by Joel Barker which points out that 
companies, and even entire industries may suffer disastrously by 
sticking only to what they originally set out to do.  He gives the 
example of the Swiss watch industry -- the originators of the quartz 
crystal watch were within the Swiss watch community, but their ideas 
were rejected by their peers because they did not perceive this new 
innovation as a "real watch".  The result of this sticking too 
closely with their original "mission" was the takeover of the watch 
market by other companies and countries.  

I think that it is a difficult balance to both review what your 
mission and vision are, and to stick to that, devoting your energy to 
achieving constancy of purpose, while the same time, being open and 
seeking out new innovations to further promote the organization.  As 
Deming also said, one of the main tasks of management is, "Jobs, 
Jobs, and more Jobs."

[Moderator's note:  The video referred to is "Discovering the Future: The 
Business of Paradigms" Joel Barker's first video.  His second:  "The Power
of Vision" is also excellent.  I have used both in a Deming context]

=========================================================================
















________________________________
Anton O. Tolman, Ph.D.
Director, Psychological Services
Director, Program Services
Wyoming State Hospital
P.O. Box 177
Evanston, WY  82931-0177
Anton@wsh.state.wy.us
(307) 789-3464
---------------    



 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              

Re: Spk
"Joseph E. Kasser" 
Thu, 16 May 1996 14:40:18 -0400 (EDT)
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
The discussion seems to be circular. IF you want to unserstand Spk,
there is a body of knowledge known as "systems engineering", take a look
at it. There are several books on the topic in any university library or
technical book store. The "5th disicpline" is not a good example to use,
it is very wordy, and i was able to represent the first 5 chapters by a
single diagram.

Joe

===========================================================================


 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Re: Ranking (fwd)
"Joseph E. Kasser" 
Thu, 16 May 1996 14:33:18 -0400 (EDT)
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             
My point deals with ranking of people.

Any system which does not rank people will fail after being mediocre for
a while.
People are using examples of poor ranking systems to abolish ranking per
se. My cynical perspective states, its th emediocre who do not wish to
be ranked who are shouting the loudest, but have no data do validate the
statement.

My interpretation of Deming wis
don't rank people based on evaluation criteria that are innapropriate
becasue the system is at fault.

That is not a reson to abolish ranking, its a reason to 

1. fix the system
2. establish appropriate ranking criteria that reinforce the goals of
   the organizaton.

For thos in the Washington area, i'm giving a talk on a way to fix the
system at the 9th annual conference on federal quality next month. The
title is "there's no place for managers in a quality organization"

In a system's perspective, we rank suppliers, we get past performance
information on plumebrs, lawyers, and physicians, and rank them as to
cost benefit. For example, facing heart bypass surgery and given the
time we pick the best hospital and cardiac care team. We think nothing
of doing this.

Don't pick up on a single deming statement, take a systems approach and
look at the statment in context.

Joe

> From: "Jennifer B. Wilson, Ph.D., SPHR" 
> Subject: Re: Ranking
> 
> Can you give me a bit more of context.  I might answer a totally different
> question than you are asking without more information.
> 
> Jennifer
> 
========================================================================


[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             

WEDI Newsletter
clauson@deming.ces.clemson.edu (List Moderator Account)
Fri, 17 May 1996 01:07:24 -0400 (EDT)
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              
At the last WEDI conference, Doug Bedell volunteered to pursue the 
possibility of developing a newsletter for the Institute.  He passed out a
brief survey to the attendees and asked that I also post it to the DEN.

Please respond *directly* to Doug at dbedell@leba.net and *not* the DEN list.

SURVEY:

A newsletter is being planned as part of a broad communications plan for the
Institute.  We would appreciate your input and suggestions about what you
would like a WEDI Newsletter to be:

1.  Beyond Institute participants, what other audiences should be served?

2.  What features should it include?

3.  What should be the publication frequency?

4.  How would you prefer to have your issue delivered?  paper via regular
    mail, e-mail, FAX, web ?

5.  What would be a reasonable subscription charge?

6.  What would be a good title?

7.  General comments?
--

Jim Clauson
DEN Moderator
 
========================================================================



 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              

Ranking and stewardship 
ICMUSA@aol.com
Fri, 17 May 1996 07:46:18 -0400
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             
In a message dated 96-05-17 00:50:45 EDT, Joe Kasser writes:

>My interpretation of Deming wis
>don't rank people based on evaluation criteria that are innapropriate
>becasue the system is at fault.
>
>That is not a reson to abolish ranking, its a reason to 
>
>1. fix the system
>2. establish appropriate ranking criteria that reinforce the goals of
>   the organizaton.


I agree.  Additionally a reason not to abolish ranking is to maintain
accountability for stewardship of limited resources.  M.F. Goodwin   

========================================================================



[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             

Re: Ranking 
Martin Charles Raff 
Fri, 17 May 1996 08:08:55
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             
Th current discussion on ranking made me go back to have a look at
what Deming said about it.

In 'The New Economics' Chapter 2 he says:

"Abolish ranking"

"Ranking is a farce. Apparent performance is actually attributable
mostly to the system..........."

"Ranking creates competition between people.............."

"Ranking comes from failure to understand variation from
common causes." 

and there is more.

Does this not sound as if he was against ranking of people in any
form?

Martin Raff
VISTA Consulting - for a better future
martin@vistaraff.win-uk.net
phone and fax: +44-1789 840418

====================================================================


[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             

Re: Deming applied to Real Estate?
egharris@bconnex.net (Emily & Grant Harris)
Fri, 17 May 1996 12:31:35 -0400 (EDT)
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
>We got a call from someone needing information on the application
>of Deming principles and philosophy to the area of real estate
>sales.
>
>Anyone have any experience or thoughts on this application?
>

Actually, I just had a brief conversation with a friend in real estate about
this very issue. Our community has taken a big economic hit recently with a
major employer shutting down. As a result there are several more houses on
the market currently (special cause). Who is our potential market? (We are
1.5 hours north of Toronto.) Two we thought of are retirees and folks who
can work primarily from home through the use of technology. What systems
need to be aligned in order to best meet the needs of these customers? 

We then talked about how realtors might link with technology service
providers to create seamless service for the customer. Our next questions
was other systems need to be aligned? This then led us to a discussion of
community quality initiatives - a particular interest of mine.

As I said, this was a brief conversation. My friend is not familiar with
Deming or SPK but is intrigued by the idea of applying systems thinking. (I
have to start her somewhere!)

Emily Harris
egharris@bconnex.net

========================================================================



[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Re: Ranking
Julie Beedon 
Wed, 15 May 1996 19:19:57
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             
 
>given a set of recomended physisians from people you trust, how do you
>decide which one to employ without ranking them?
>:)

Given my understanding of the system, and the lack of useful data
available to me - I write their names on a piece of paper and draw
them out of a hat... or I make some other *totally* subjective
judgement (which I reassure myself is solid ranking).... unless I
have data I trust which shows who is inside the system (then I
could stick a pin in for all its worth) and who is outside - above
I might choose them (I might want to know why they are outside
- it could be a special cause - thye might fiddle their results
data - I am thinking here of the story line in ER where the guy
left out the ones who failed by asserting they did not meet the
criterion!!!) below I would avoid them... bet that quality of data
is rarely available - so it is all a lottery! We only like to
pretend otherwise because ti give us an illusion of control and
choice.... ?? 

========================================================================


[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             

Vision: Our business is rubbish 
Morris Taylor 
Sat, 18 May 1996 11:38:13 +0100
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
>From time to time we need to remember the power and relevance of fun.

In Glasgow, Scotland about ten or more years ago there was a company ( I
think it may still be trading ) which rented out large metal garbage skips (
I'm sorry I don't know the correct engineering or Latin name for 'skip'). 

They called themselves 'Mr Skippy' and they had one of the the most
endearing 'slogans'. It combined vision, value and mission statement in one.
It was painted on all their trucks and skips. It left no-one in any doubt.
They became successful very quickly.

The slogan? 'Our business is Rubbish'


Sincere Regards
 	
Morris Taylor 

Aberdeen Centre for Therapeutic Hypnosis
at
MOTIVATION TECHNOLOGY
One Belgrave Terrace	
ABERDEEN				
UK
AB25 2NR

+44 (0)1224 633 222 	(Voice)
+44 (0)1224 646 999 	(Fax)

'The true meaning of your communication is the response you get back ... '

=======================================================================



 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Ranking
jr1crow@mindspring.com (James Robert Crow)
Wed, 15 May 1996 09:13:51 -0500
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             
 Several years ago when I was the Director of HR with a Japanese high tech
company I was tempted to use ranking.  We had a pay for performance system
and it just wasn't working for all of the reasons these systems don't work.
One of the problems we were experiencing was that the supervisors tended to
rate people higher than we thought they should.  I considered using ranking
as a method of dealing with this problem by having the people on each shift
and department determine the ranking rather than place this in the hands of
the supervisors.

What we considered was giving each person on the shift a list of the people
they worked with, and asking them to rank them best to worst.  We would then
collect the information and the person that got the most votes for number
one would be the best and then continue down the line until we arrived at
the person who was the worst as determined by their peers.  It had a lot of
positives, i,e. employee involvement, easily defenable for EEOC purposes,
but we decided not to do it.  At the time we enjoyed good employee
relations, and had a stable productive work force.  Forcing these people to
rank each other for pay purposes had some potential negative consequences,
i.e. the only person that would be happy afterward was the person ranked
number one, everyone else lost.  We felt that our employee relations would
suffer as a result.

A friend of mind, with a major company was forced to begin ranking his
people when his company adopted ranking, and forced distributions.  His
solution was to get his people together and explain the new policy and that
he did not feel comfortable in ranking them.  He shifted the burden to the
group (about 7 people) by asking who in the group they considered to be the
best?  To his surprise someone said Jack.  He asked Why, and there was
general agreement that Jack was the best.  He then asked for the number two
person and once again a name was put forth.  He then asked for number three,
and the group was silent.  All of the othe members were looking around and
saying,"I'm just as good as these other guys."  They decided the remaining
slots by drawing straws, which was probably just as good as any other method.

This same company did a nation wide employee morale survey several years
ago.  The number one thing the people in the company did not like was the
lack of team work in the organization.  The number two thing was the forced
ranking system.  Is either of these things any surprise?

The rankings and forced distributions create an adversarily internal
environment which forces people to compete with each other for their pay
increases in the belief that this drives performance.  The result is
everyone working for themselves and no one working for the company.  Trust
goes out the window along with teamwork making it more difficult to focus
the energy of the company on the customer and the external competition.

Hewlette Packard has a long history of profit sharing which goes back to the
begining of the company.  David Packard was at a sales show once and was
being questioned by the president of another company as to how their program
worked.  During the conversation it became apparent that the president of
the other company wanted to use the profit sharing as an individual
incentive program to reward and punish.  Mr. Packard's response was, "Do you
want your people working for you or for themselves?"  

Robert Crow
President, The Crow Group
jr1crow@mindspring.com

=========================================================================


[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             

Barker in a"Deming context"
leaders@gulftel.com (James McKinley)
Sat, 18 May 1996 13:38:03 -0500 (CDT)
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
>[Moderator's note:  The video referred to is "Discovering the Future: The 
>Business of Paradigms" Joel Barker's first video.  His second:  "The Power
>of Vision" is also excellent.  I have used both in a Deming context]

>I am interested in learning how you have used the Barker video's "in a
>Deming context." 
>Thanks.

>Jim McKinley   Excellence in Leadership   leaders@gulftel.com

As Noted in a previous message, the "paradigm" video uses a number of examples
of the effect of paradigms and paradigm shifts on products.  I use this video
in 'the Deming context' to teach the idea of "What business are we in?" that
Dr. Deming spoke of.  Remaining close to the customer (ala Deming's
production cycle); innovation; environmental scanning;, etc - are critical
elements of both Deming and the on-going success of business and community.

The "Vision" video is a great tool to reinforce Deming's concept of Point
#1: Constancy of Purpose and Point 14: Making the transformation happen.  
The video combines forward looking thinking with the action needed to get
there.

These are broad brush thoughts - each time I use these videos, I see more
relevant lessons.

I had the opportunity to talk to Joel Barker when he was in TN to work on his
EFG Curriculum project.  We discussed how many of the current "leaders" in
organizational and community change seem to be coming together in philosophy.
He told me that many of these apparently diverse groups are, in fact, studying
one another.  What seems to be emerging may be a... System of Profound 
Knowledge!

Jim Clauson
DEN Moderator

==========================================================================


[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Deming Questions # 15
gogue@chailly.ensmp.fr (GOGUE J.M. Societe MAST 39 50 99 67)
Mon, 20 May 96 09:50:51 +0200
[Next of thread]             
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             


--------------------------  DEMING QUESTIONS  -------------------------- 

A weekly paper including a set of questions copied in the Deming book 
OUT OF THE CRISIS   Chapter 5.  Questions to Help Managers.

By Jean-Marie Gogue

-----
# 15
-----

1.  (No 30 in the Book) - Plan for new products

a)   What is your program for development of new product and new service 
for the future?

b)   How do you plan to test your new designs or ideas?

COMMENTS
Making a plan for new products is the aim of Chapter 6 'Quality and the 
Consumer', in 'Out of the Crisis'. It's a very complex issue. The answer 
is *The New Way* described page 180. Deming explained *The New Way* in 
front of an audience of Japanese CEO's in Tokyo, 12 July 1950. Since this 
historical event, the Japanese have made thousands of seminars on the 
subject. Did your company adopt *The New Way*? And for people graduated 
from a business school : did you learn *The New Way* at the university?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will be away for 2 weeks. The next issue will be sent on June 6th.

Jean-Marie Gogue
President
The French Deming Association
Versailles   France
gogue@ensmp.fr


[Moderator's note:  For those new to the Deming philosophy and/or for those
who may still be working through _Out of the Crisis_, could I suggest that
those more proficient elaborate on "The New Way?"  Thanks, Jim Clauson]
=========================================================================


[Next of thread]             
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Re: Ranking (Was Dr. Deming not clear about this, or what?)
"Zultner, Richard E." 
Mon, 20 May 96 02:57:40 -0500
[Next of thread]              
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             
-- [ From: Zultner, Richard E. * EMC.Ver #2.5.03 ] --

-------- REPLY, Original message follows --------
Joseph E. Kasser (jkasser@seas.gwu.edu) writes:
> My interpretation of Deming is
> don't rank people based on evaluation criteria that are inappropriate
because
> the system is at fault.
> That is not a reason to abolish ranking, its a reason to 
> 1. fix the system

I am most interested to see how you propose to "fix" the system based upon
rankings! Please share with us the details of this advance that not even Dr.
Deming could discern...

> 2. establish appropriate ranking criteria that reinforce the goals of the
organization.

Again, I await your explanation as to how ranking "appropriately" is going
to "reinforce" the goals of the organization...

> In a system's perspective, we rank suppliers, we get past performance
> information on plumbers, lawyers, and physicians, and rank them as to cost
> benefit.

I'd love to see how you evaluate "benefit" in those cases! And just how does
this help you? Or help them to improve? I suppose with the "proper" rankings
, you can get more than half as "above average" suppliers?

> For example, facing heart bypass surgery and given the time we pick
> the best hospital and cardiac care team. We think nothing of doing this.

Picking the best does not require ranking. Ranking means to place in order:
1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. Or to place into categories: 1st rank, 2nd rank, etc. I
don't need to rank to choose one. Evaluate, yes. Rank, no. Can we agree Dr.
Deming did NOT say "Don't evaluate anything, ever"?

I would summarize Dr. Deming's views on ranking as follows: (1) Ranking is
unnecessary--you don't need to rank in order to select, or to improve,
things. It is simply a waste of time. (2) You only get three real "ranks"
anyway: in the system (within the control limits), above the upper control
limit (possessing a secret knack), and below the lower control limit 
(possess a secret ignorance). Beyond that is simply wishful thinking. (3)
Excepting (1) and (2), to use rankings for any serious purpose, you would
have to have confidence in the rankings (i.e., in the ranking process itself
)--which requires you have a fairly good idea about the ACCURACY and
RELIABILITY of the ranking process as a measurement system. Do you know what
the error terms are for your rankings? After determining the actual
confidence intervals, just what can you really say about the results? Just
as I thought--not much...

I hope you are at least using
a decent ranking method--capable of accurate outputs (limited by your inputs
) and providing ratio-scale results! The Analytic Hierarchy Process is such
a method (and as such, can be used for good or evil...). See: Saaty, Thomas
L. 1994. Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the
Analytic Hierarchy Process. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications. ISBN 0-9620317
-6-3. Available from RWS Publications +1 (412) 621-4494  fax +1 (412) 682-
7008. Chapter 1 "How to Make a Decision" is a good summary of AHP.

Was Dr. Deming not clear about this, or what?

--
============================================================
 Richard E. Zultner           internet: richard@zultner.com
 ZULTNER & COMPANY            voice: +1 (609) 452-0216
 12 Wallingford Drive         fax: +1 (609) 452-2643
 Princeton, NJ  08540-6428    Software QFD, SPC, TQM,
 USA                             and the Deming Way
============================================================

=========================================================================


[Next of thread]              
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             

Problems with Ranking 
sta010@abdn.ac.uk
Mon, 20 May 96 12:47:35 BST
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             
I have just come back on-line after two weeks away, so my apologies if
this has been said before.

When we look at any idea like ranking, we must look at it from all
the aspects of Profound Knowledge, including the interactions between
them. Comments I have seen have concentrated on the fact that you cannot
know the contribution of the individual separate from that of the
system (a variation-system-knowledge interaction).

But we must not forget the human dimension. People are different. They
cannot be measured on a single scale: some are good in a crisis, other
think creatively, others patient and helpful, and so on. All these
qualities are valuable if the organisation can recognise them and make
use of them. To put people on a single scale ignores all this. In a
team or with the right opportunities, someone ineffective in the
situation they are now in could blossom. (Psychology -system interaction).

But then, consider the effect of ranking on people: it creates competition
instead of cooperation, and may make people try too hard. Worst of all, it
may make people try to fit the single pattern that gets the highest score.
This makes pressure for conformity and destroys creativity.

So ranking is very destructive, even if we could separate system and
person effects. Since we can't, we get the worst of everything.

It probably does less harm in the traditional organisation, where differ-
ences are not valued, creativity is reagarded as subversion, and conform-
ity is regarded as a virtue. So if ranking appears to work in your
organisation, what does that tell you?

David Kerridge

British Deming Association Scotland
dfk@abdn.ac.uk

========================================================================


[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             

Re: Ranking
"John Paul Fullerton" 
Mon, 20 May 1996 11:29:30 +0000
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             
> The rankings and forced distributions create an adversarily internal
> environment which forces people to compete with each other for their pay
> increases in the belief that this drives performance.  The result is
> everyone working for themselves and no one working for the company.  Trust
> goes out the window along with teamwork making it more difficult to focus
> the energy of the company on the customer and the external competition.

After visiting an audio-visual/computer store, having worked for a 
related company when in high school, I realized that when salespeople 
are thinking about commission they might make on a sale, they are not 
directly thinking of the customer. Their "what can we help you with 
today" could possibly mean "what can I sell you today".

On the learning organizations list, someone mentioned that people's 
resistance to change could be due to thinking "I'm going to lose what 
I've worked for all these years". In a related way, if income is 
related in an incomplete fashion with work efforts, income might 
steer decisions rather than the typical concerns that we like to see.
 

Have a nice day
John Paul Fullerton
jpf@myriad.net

=========================================================================


 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             

Re: Spk I systems view
Morris Taylor 
Mon, 20 May 1996 15:35:01 +0100
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
At 14:40 16-05-96 -0400, joe kassner wrote:

>The discussion seems to be circular. IF you want to unserstand Spk,
>there is a body of knowledge known as "systems engineering", take a look
>at it. 

The suggestion to take a (monocular) look at the SPK through the medium of
"systems engineering" is an interesting one. For a moment or two it almost
had me confused. Now I'm not sure if I'd like to say whether a discussion
without an antecedent (to what discussion are you referring) is circular or
not. But I do know when an argument is self-refuting. 

In this case it also has to do with domains, sets, sizes and capabilities.
Or maybe it's big fish and little fish and which one is able to eat the
other - but then that would be a metaphor ...

After much consideration may I simplify things by suggesting looking at it
the other way round. viz:

If you want to understand "systems engineering" there is a body of something
which is much more than just knowledge - its called the System of Profound
Knowledge. Take a look at it.

The trouble with retirement is that you never get a day off ... 

Sincere Regards
 	
Morris Taylor 

Aberdeen Centre for Therapeutic Hypnosis
at
MOTIVATION TECHNOLOGY
One Belgrave Terrace	
ABERDEEN				
UK
AB25 2NR

+44 (0)1224 633 222 	(Voice)
+44 (0)1224 646 999 	(Fax)

'The true meaning of your communication is the response you get back ... '

===========================================================================



 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Lacking Deming in Real Estate
Dan Schkolnik <75104.413@CompuServe.COM>
20 May 96 20:06:18 EDT
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
I did business with three different offices of a large local realtor when I
purchased my house.  What took me by surprise--perhaps it shouldn't have, was
the complete lack of systems perspective.  A few examples:

Each agent is a semi-independant contractor who leases space from the company.
Their rent covers office space, clerical support, and access to a multiple
listing data base.  Rent is a percentage of income above some threshold value,
to lessen the effect of a poor month's sales.  Each agent is paid commission on
a sale.  In order to "motivate" the troops, there's an annual trip based on "X"
million dollars in transactions for the year, also awarded are cars, dinners,
theatre tickets, etc.

I'll spare the obvious discussions about the pitfalls of commissioned sales and
skip to some of the organization-specific realizations which might help the
person who originally posed the question.  People didn't work together.  There
was almost no "I drove by a house which would be perfect for one of your
(another agent's) clients."  With every person out for themself, this couldn't
happen.  Equally frustrating as a customer, when my agent was to be at a
doctor's appointment, he couldn't/wouldn't ask another agent to print out
listings from the data base, in spite of being the heart of the dead season
(winter/Christmas/New Years) in real estate.  When I asked why, he explained
that "If another agent finds something you want, I would feel obliged to share
the commission."  I got another agent and solved that dilemma for him.

Hope these experiences give the requestor a starting point.

Dan Schkolnik
Portland, O

==========================================================================


 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Grading Providers and Teachers
Dan Schkolnik <75104.413@CompuServe.COM>
20 May 96 20:49:23 EDT
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
I work with an organization which provides training seminars to technicians.  At
the end of each (two-day) seminar, attendees are asked to grade the instructor,
the relevance of the course material to their jobs and other boiler plate
questions.  I see this as in-valid as asking patients to rank their health care
providers.  Also, how arrogant does one have to be to evaluate the relevance of
a treatment administerred by somebody else?  I assume that the evaluations are
based on looking backwards after the patient is treated and the effectiveness of
the treatment has been established.  I know nothing of medicine, but I know that
a system as complicated as the human body may not respond in a predetermined
fashion.  It's rediculous to assume that some Monday Morning Quarterback looking
backwards in time and space is going to do anything to improve the system.  

The survey given to the technicians is equally irrelevant.  By what criteria
should a student evaluate the instructor or the relevance of material (s)he was
just exposed to?  The tacit implication of both of these examples is that the
patient knows medecine as well as the physician or the student knows the
technical material as well as the instructor--each after only a brief exposure.
How absurd.

Dan 
PDX

===========================================================================



[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Barker in a"Deming context"
mbc@cosmail3.ctd.ornl.gov (Jack Campbell)
Tue, 21 May 1996 09:08:59 -0400 (EDT)
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
        For whatever it's worth, I have also viewed the Paradigm tapes of
Joel Barker and found them fascinating and informative.  I was especially
impressed with the second tape which stressed how important it is for a
company (or country) to bring its ideas to fruition rather than dismissing
them because they don't fit the current company mold.   Or, (probably worse
still) to continue the practice of allowing another country to develop "our"
ideas with the idea in mind that, if the idea turns out to be a success,
that we can apply megabucks and take over the product line.
Barker offers the Sony Walkman as an example of why that practice "ain't
gonna work"
anymore. 

Jack Campbell
mbc@ornl.gov  

=======================================================================


[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Learning Org list
clauson@deming.ces.clemson.edu (List Moderator Account)
Tue, 21 May 1996 13:48:11 -0400 (EDT)
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              
Several of our subscribers asked about the Learning Organization
discussion list mentioned a few days ago.

Subscription address:  majordomo@world.std.com

Message text:  subscribe learning-org

I have not subbed to this list, so I cannot assess the quality or quantity
of the messages.

Jim Clauson
DEN Moderator 

==========================================================================

-- 



[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              

Take heart
Myron Tribus <104055.2663@CompuServe.COM>
22 May 96 17:07:50 EDT
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
Those who grow discouraged over their efforts to reform their companies may draw
some comfort from the following:

       One of the difficulties in bringing about change in an
       organization is that you must do so through persons who
       have been most successful In that organization, no matter
       how faulty the system or organization may be.
       
       To such persons you see, it is the best of all possible
       organizations,   because look who was selected by it and look
       who succeeded most within it.
       
       Yet these are the very people through whom we must bring
       about improvements
       
       -George Washington 
       The passage is an excerpt from his second
       inaugural address as President of the United States 
       
              
Myron Tribus, 350 Britto Terrace, Fremont, CA 94539   PH: (510) 651 3641
FAX: (510) 656 9875  e-mail: 104055.2663@compuserve.com
You live only as long as you learn.  You learn only as long as it is
interesting.  It will be  interesting only if it is fun.  Therefore, you live
only if it is fun.

======================================================================



 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Re: Grading Providers and Teachers
Peter Rose Associates 
Wed, 22 May 1996 08:36:31 GMT
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
In your message dated Monday 20, May 1996 you wrote :
> I work with an organization which provides training seminars to technicians.  
At
> the end of each (two-day) seminar, attendees are asked to grade the 
instructor,
> the relevance of the course material to their jobs and other boiler plate
> questions.  I see this as in-valid as asking patients to rank their health 
care
> providers.  

It depends on what view you take of the people attending the course.  If they 
have clearly identified what skills they need to do their job better then they 
should have clear objectives for themselves in attending the course in the first 
place.  They should have targets and standards - targets on what they want to 
achieve in improving their performance and standards to be attained in their 
training.  These objectives should be met by the courses objectives and a good 
instructor should find out what his students want to learn, what standard they 
are already at and what standard they want to get to.  He will then adjust his 
material and delivery to match these.
It is more difficult when either there is mixed ability and mixed standards to 
be attained, but then a good teacher will set individual exercises for each 
student.
Again it is more difficult if someone is being educated rather than trained i.e. 
they have no idea of the subject matter that they need to learn.  Even so their 
coach or manager should be able to tell them 'you need to get skills in such and 
such at a certain standard'.

IMHO I don't think the analogy with a patient receiving care from a doctor (or 
in fact any other expert-client relationship) holds.  This is only true when the 
(expert) teacher takes the position that I know more than you and I know what is 
good for you and you will learn it.  In fact this same attitude from doctors 
does not wash with me either; I want to know what the options are and why a 
particular one has been choosen.
I am not a teacher or expert in education, but I believe that what I am 
advocating is pupil centred learning, rather than teacher centred teaching.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Peter Rose Associates    EMail From Peter Rose peter@proseass.demon.co.uk     
                              |
| Mail sent via Demon Internet - Tel(44) 01565 651159 or fax 01565 634948  |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================================


[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

ASQC honors Ed Baker
clauson@deming.ces.clemson.edu (List Moderator Account)
Wed, 22 May 1996 16:40:29 -0400 (EDT)
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              
>From the June/July 1996 _On Q_ from ASQC:

"The Ishikawa Medal was presented to Edward M. Baker.  His citation reads,
"His contributions to the human side of quality have produced a significant
impact on the quality of our business society.  This man of gentle humor
and compassion is a practitioner, a scholar, and a believer in the human
spirit."

"The Ishikawa Medal was established to recognize outstanding leadership
by individuals or teams in improving the human aspects of quality.  The
medal is named for Kaoru Ishikawa, whose approach to quality was marked
by broad involvement, both from top to bottom within the company hierarchy
and from start to finish, in the product life cycle."

Ed Baker is one of the 6 Board members of the W. Edwards Deming Institute.

Congratulations Ed.

Jim Clauson
DEN Moderator
 
===========================================================================



 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              

Re: Grading Providers and Teachers
"William J. Latzko" 
Wed, 22 May 1996 19:15:05 GMT
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
At 00:49 5/21/96 +0000, Dan Schkolnik  wrote:
>I work with an organization which provides training seminars to
technicians.  At
>the end of each (two-day) seminar, attendees are asked to grade the instructor,
>the relevance of the course material to their jobs and other boiler plate
>questions.  I see this as in-valid as asking patients to rank their health care
>providers. 
>
>How absurd.
>
>Dan 

Dr. Deming agrees with you. He often referred to the survey he did for NYU
years after the student's graduated. The teachers that the former students
named as having most influenced them never won any of the awards for teaching.

We have a similar survey at Fordham. It is not helpful to me. I survey my
students to improve my teaching. I ask  about the teaching method I use. I
also ask what they learned. Finally, I ask what would improve the learning
process.  Many students have made good suggestions. 

Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
William J. Latzko
215 - 79th Street
N. Bergen, NJ 07047
Voice:     201-868-5338
Facsimile: 201-868-5338
E-mail:    latzko@worldnet.att.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

===========================================================================


[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Re: DEN Aim - revisited
collinsc@host003.mis.pinellas.k12.fl.us (Chris Collins)
Wed, 22 May 1996 15:04:53 -0400
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
It would seem that the DEN has achieved the very essence of the mission--a
vital link for learning and communication.

Christine C. Collins
Quality Facilitator
Quality Academy
Pinellas County Schools
P.O. Box 2942
Largo, FL  34649-2942
813-588-6295
FAX 813-588-6530

=======================================================================



[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Re: Learning Org list
Colston Sanger 
Tue, 21 May 1996 23:13:49 +0100 (BST)
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Jim Clauson, our DEN moderator, wrote:
> I have not subbed to this list, so I cannot assess the quality or quantity
> of the messages.

But I have, for about two years now, and can wholeheartedly
recommend the learning-org list to DEN people. You'll find there
are a lot of messages (although a digest form is also available,
as is a Web page), with a lot of lively, thoughtful and thought-provoking
discussion going on. Moreover, the name Deming crops up quite
often.

Regards,

Colston Sanger
-- 
GID Limited 
69 Kings Road
Haslemere
Surrey GU27 2QG, UK
Email: colston@gid.co.uk        Tel/Fax: 01428 654821

[Moderator's note - John Woods echos what Colston says about learning-org.
John writes that the posts are high quality, well-written, and thought
provoking.                                   Jim Clauson  Den Moderator]

=======================================================================


 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

DEN Aim - revisited
clauson@deming.ces.clemson.edu (List Moderator Account)
Wed, 22 May 1996 14:48:57 -0400 (EDT)
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              
Robert Crow may well have read my mind...

I was just about to propose that we revisit the DEN Aim - both as an exercise
in the operational definition and development of an aim; and a desire
to update/validate the existing aim.

The current DEN Aim is as follows:

"To promote the Institute's focus and objectives by providing an international
electronic communication and resource sharing infrastructure."

Conversations with subscribers at the recent WEDI conference would indicate
that the DEN is evolving away from a "simple" communications tool to 
becoming a catalyst for a learning community.

So: customers, subscribers, and Deming devotees - where do we go from here?

Thanks,

Jim Clauson
DEN Moderator

=======================================================================
-- 



[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              

Defining the Aim of the System
jr1crow@mindspring.com (James Robert Crow)
Mon, 20 May 1996 06:17:22 -0500
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
I want to provide the group with what Dr. Deming had to say regarding the
aim of the system.  This is taken from The New Economics.  Then I will give
you a proposed aim for a system and I want you to take some shots at it with
the aim of coming up with a better aim, or possible we can come to some
consensus regarding what an aim should look like.

A system is a network of interdependent components that work together to try
to accomplish the aim of the system.

A system must have an aim.  without an aim, there is no system.
The aim of the system must be clear to everyone in the system.
The aim must include plans for the future.
The aim is a value judgment.
The components meed not all be clearly defined and documented:  People may
merely do what needs to be done.
Management of a system therefore requires knowledge of the
interrelationships between all the components within the system and of the
people that work in it.
A system must be managed.  It will not manage itself.  Left to themselves in
the Western world, components become selfish, competitive, independent
profit centers.
The secret is cooperation between components toward the aim of the organization.

Recommended aim.  The aim proposed here for any organization si for
everybody to gain - stockholders, employees, suppliers, customers,
community, the environment - over the long term.

Point 1 of the 14 points, constancy of purpose - the aim of the system,
emphasis on purpose.

Development of an aim:  The chouce of an aim is clearly a matter of
clarification of values, especially on the chouce between possible options.

A system must create something of value.  results.  The intended results,
along with consideration of recipients and of cost, mold the aim of the
system.  It is thus management's task to determine those aims, to manage and
continually improve processes that work toward those aims.

The aim should neve be defined in terms of activity of methods.  I must
always relate directly to how life is better for everyone.

The aim precedes the organizational system and those that work in it.

It is an obligation of leadership to sponsor and energize the determination
of the aim.  Leadership may be the owner, or board of directors.

There must evolve a sense of agreement upon the aim that extends through the
organization.

     My concern is basically that I see, and I will admit that I have helped
companies create, the big
flowerie statements that are hung on the wall and promply forgotton.  The
feeling is one of relief, "Well we got that out of the way, now lets get
back to business as usual."

     To me the aim should establish the basis for the existance of the
organization.  It is on this very basic premis that this organization is
established, and this is something we can come back to for guidance in the
future to make sure that we are still on course.  Since my basic background
in the airline industry I would like to give you a proposed aim for the
beginning of an airline.  I would like for the group to work with me to
bring it into compliance with what Dr. Deming means when he says that the
aim must preceed the organization.

To provide safe, dependable, affordable, scheduled air transportation to the
public at a profit.

Have at it!

Robert Crow
President, The Crow Group
jr1crow@mindspring.com

==========================================================================


 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Re: Values and Performance Evaluations
Bill.Reynolds@JV-MAIL1.APG-SALAMIS.BT-CCMAIL.btX400.co.uk
Wed, 22 May 96 10:38:35 EDT
[Next of thread]              
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             
A question.  If so much of the information related to people is subjective
why is it inappropriate to use SPC methods on this data once having
gathered it from a variety of independent sources i.e. rather than using
the data to evaluate the person (appraisal) use it to some how evaluate the
system ?  In our business a lot of the systems output relies on these soft
people issues (communication, teamwork, attitude to clients etc.).

The system people find themselves working in must impact on the quality of
the outputs related to these types of processes just as say the processes
used in building a car.  Would SPC give us a way of showing the data so as
to determine if things are improving ?

Is this a sensible topic for discussion or really coming out of left field
?

Regards
William Reynolds
Scotland

bill.reynolds@JV-mail1.apg-salamis.bt-ccmail.btx400.co.uk

=======================================================================


[Next of thread]              
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             

Re: DEN Aim - revisited
LNUSPTH1.RZYJ8C@gmeds.com
Wed, 22 May 96 17:42:42 EDT
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
I believe the Aim is probably OK as is. The reference to the objectives of the 
Deming Institute encompasses the aspect of facilitating learning of the 
existant knowledge as well as its extension. The need which the DEN itself 
serves is one of infrastructure, which is being abley performed in my opinion.

Cheers, Ian Bradbury
lnuspth1.rzyj8c@gmeds.com

=========================================================================


[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Seminar on Teaching of Dr. Deming
LNUSPTH1.WZ33XG@gmeds.com
Wed, 22 May 96 17:43:46 EDT
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
 Below is a copy of a memo sent to suppliers of GM Powertrain inviting them to 
a seminar.  A recient querry of the DEN asked about this type of seminar.  The 
seminar is based on video of a four day seminar.

Jack Jordan     November 3, 1995

      Bulletin 95MSS7

To:  All Powertrain Suppliers

From:  Global Partner Communications

Subject: Seminar on the Leadership Philosophy of Dr. W. Edwards Deming

General Motors Powertrain Group continues the work of the late Dr. W. Edwards 
Deming by offering a continuation of the seminar he designed to help 
industrial, education, health care and government leaders regain a competitive 
position in the international marketplace. Limited seating is available for the 
four-day seminar to be held December 5-8, 1995 at live and satellite sites. 
Seminars will also be held in 1996 on the following dates; March 5-8 (live site 
only), June 4-7 (satellite broadcast), September 24-27 (live site only) and 
December 3-6 (satellite broadcast).

The videotape sessions consist of Dr. Demings fascinating, challenging, and 
sometimes controversial teachings covering his major leadership philosophy as 
outlined in his reference material and books.  The seminar format also 
incorporates live presentations by Dr. Demings associates, small group 
discussions and facilitated large group discussions with the conference 
participants.  Seminar contents include:

Day 1: How are we doing? Where is quality made? The heavy losses, present 
practice-better practice, numerical goals, merit pay, introduction to a system, 
definition of a system, the need for an aim, optimization.

Day 2: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, the forces of destruction, role of a 
manager of people, the red bead experiment, theory of knowledge, building 
knowledge for improvement.

Day 3: Analysis of the red bead experiment, Shewhart and control charts, 
minimum net economic loss, variation and life, the funnel experiment, 
tampering, operational definitions, compensation systems.

Day 4: Training in a skill, relationships with suppliers, applications to 
service industries, 3 worlds of purchasing, common misunderstandings of Demings 
philosophy, personal transformation and further learning opportunities.

The seminar will run from 8:00 a.m. until 5 p.m. each day. Locations for the 
December seminar are at the GMPTG Warren Engineering Auditorium and several 
satellite sites. Registration is $150 for the members of not-for-profit 
organizations or the GM/EDS supplier community. Registration is otherwise $600 
for non-GM/EDS employees.

Registration includes copies of Dr. Demings two books; Out of the Crisis and 
The New Economics, seminar reference materials, lunch and refreshments. For 
more information and registration for this leadership seminar, please contact 
Brenda Harvey of General Motors Powertrain Group at (313)481-3820.

      GM Powertrain Group  

===========================================================================


 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Re: System or Individual?
"Anton O. Tolman, Ph.D." 
Wed, 22 May 1996 17:29:18 -0700 (MST)
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              
On May 3rd, Ron Davison wrote:

> Newsweek recently reported on the "Flynn effect."  Apparently, a researcher
> has documented a fairly well agreed upon rise in IQs.  IQs have risen nearly
> 30 points in the UK since 1948 and nearly that much in the US since 1918.
>  The rise apparently holds for every country.

As a psychologist, I feel an obligation to respond to Ron's post.  I 
do not disagree with Ron on the enormous impact that systems, 
cultures, etc. have on individuals.  I think that there is plenty of 
very clear evidence for this.  In fact, in mental health circles, the 
current emphasis on constructivist interpretations of reality fits 
with this position:  what we determine as reality is the language 
consensus that we adopt and fit in with -- the shared interpretation 
of meaning and the very construction of that meaning both for 
individuals and groups.  Constructivists would say that the person 
laying on his bed daydreaming about the future is participating in 
community activity -- he/she is engaging in the manipulation of 
cultural symbols and the very direction and content of that 
manipulation is based upon community values and direction.  

That being said, there are other explanations for the rise in IQ; I 
have not read the researcher articles references in Newsweek, but 
it is very common for the value of an IQ test such as those produced 
by the Psychological Corporation (WAIS-R, etc.) to become inflated 
over time.  In fact, this necessitates the regular re-standardization 
of these tests in order to bring them back in line so that the 
numbers have any meaning.  For example, Psych Corp recently released 
the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - 3rd edition (WISC-
III).  Comparison of WISC-III distributions to those of the previous 
version, the WISC-R, standardized in the 80's reveals a significant 
difference.  A child given the WISC-R two years ago might show an 
apparent "drop" in IQ when measured by the WISC-III now even thought 
there has in reality been no change in the child's performance.  What 
has changed is the comparison group and the nature of the test items. 

I mean for this discourse to be more than a lecture in psychometrics -
- I think that this pattern -- the need to periodically restandardize 
or re-examine our goals and achievements is part and parcel of 
quality improvement, no matter the field.  I think Ron's comment 
about performance tracks measurement fits into this -- if a company 
is working to apply and live by the 14 points and other quality 
principles, they will gradually reduce variation until the system is 
totally stable and no more can be achieved using the same system 
(inflated IQ's -- maybe looking better than we're really doing as 
the world changes around us); the only way to then make further gains 
is to change the system in some innovative way to increase the 
adaptation between our improvements and the world around us (re-
standardize the IQ tests).  Our measurements then become more 
accurate again for a time.

In a sense, this also fits with the system-individual interaction.  
If I disregard these system effects when assessing the performance of 
an individual child, I might mistakenly assume that something has 
happened to produce a "lower" IQ score.  It is only when I understand 
the system variation and pattern that the individual score makes 
sense.  

I never realized how much Demingism could fit in with clinical 
psychology before.......hmmmmmm..     :)
________________________________
Anton O. Tolman, Ph.D.
Director, Psychological Services
Director, Program Services
Wyoming State Hospital
P.O. Box 177
Evanston, WY  82931-0177
Anton@wsh.state.wy.us
(307) 789-3464
---------------    

============================================================================


 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              

Re The Aim of a System
Peter Rose Associates 
Thu, 23 May 96 03:45:41 EDT
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
> I have had a CEO say to me that his customers are the shareholders.
> He hires people to look after the real customers but his job is to
> look after the shareholders.  Implicit in this is that he has no real
> interest in the product as long as it makes money.  
> 
The concentration on purely financial returns (and often very short term- 
today's share price, next quarter's dividend) is one of the things that 
mitigates against a long term view.
In UK we have had a study of where companies are going, that was financed and 
led by the leaders of industry. The study was run under the Royal Society for 
the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (often known as RSA) and 
came out last July under the title of Tomorrows Company.  It strongly supports 
the creation of a vision and having a model for success.  It highlights one of 
the principle reasons for failure that directors do not understand that their 
duties and responsibilities are more than just to current shareholders.
I quote from the report
'One significant barrier to change .... is that many chief executives and many 
boards believe that it is more important for them to concentrate their attention 
on pleasing the current body of shareholders than on securing the long term 
health of the enterprise.  When questioned, they say they have no choice:it is 
their duty in law.' 
The report goes on to say
'In fact directors' duties are owed to their company, not to any specific 
third-party group. They must, as fiduciaries, have regard to the interest of 
shareholders, but the obligation is not related to the holders of shares at any 
one particular time - it is related to the general body of shareholders from 
time to time'

Copies of the report are available from Gower Publishing, Gower House, Croft Rd, 
Aldershot Hampshire GU11 3HR.telephone (44) 0171 839 1641. General enquiries on 
the follow up work now being done after the report to Mark Goyder at RSA 8 John 
Adam St London WC2N 6EZ, phone (44) 0171 930 5115 e-mail rsa@rasftech.co.uk   
I would recommend the report as a good read for any one interested in this area. 
It is also written by business men for business men. 

Contact me if you would like to discuss further.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Peter Rose Associates    EMail From Peter Rose peter@proseass.demon.co.uk     
                              |
| Mail sent via Demon Internet - Tel(44) 01565 651159 or fax 01565 634948  |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

=========================================================================

--
============================================
steve@horn.demon.co.uk
Bo'ness, West Lothian, Scotland, U.K.
============================================





[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Re: DEN Aim - revisited
Colston Sanger 
Thu, 23 May 1996 11:56:48 +0100 (BST)
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

List Moderator Account (Jim Clausen) writes:
> ... 
> The current DEN Aim is as follows:
> 
> "To promote the Institute's focus and objectives by providing an international
> electronic communication and resource sharing infrastructure."
> 
> Conversations with subscribers at the recent WEDI conference would indicate
> that the DEN is evolving away from a "simple" communications tool to 
> becoming a catalyst for a learning community.

This bothers me,

When I read the current DEN Aim, what I see is a lot of long,
abstract words - and what I feel is `I don't understand what this
means'. So maybe (as Jim says) it would be useful to work on an
operational definition of the aim.

Another concern is that I sense a certain circularity in the way
that the DEN aim is `to promote the Institute's focus and
objectives', and the aim of the WEDI (at least in the version I
have before me) is to `foster understanding of of the Deming
System of Profound Knowledge TM...' but we don't seem to spell
out what that means for us, now.

We've been here before on this list, a few months ago, in the
thread on the Deming community as a `closed system'.

But maybe the interesting, developmental bit is Jim's rider:
> ... evolving away from a "simple" communications tool to 
> becoming a catalyst for a learning community' ?

Regards,

Colston Sanger
-- 
GID Limited     
69 Kings Road  
Haslemere
Surrey GU27 2QG, UK
Email: colston@gid.co.uk        Tel/Fax: +44 1428 654821

==========================================================================


[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

SPC and subjective data
sta010@abdn.ac.uk
Thu, 23 May 96 12:24:31 BST
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
Bill Reynolds asks why we should not use information about people, 
even though it is subjective, in SPC.

We can, but we have to be careful. Obviously there is a risk that, if
the data is collected, it will be used to judge people instead of
helping them. But there are also statistical dangers.

Take a simple measure like the numbers of complaints, or an index of
customer satisfaction. Both depend on subjective judgements, even though
the number of complaints is an objective fact.

If we see sudden jumps, or simple indicators of special causes in a series
of either of these, we may be able to find a way to improve the system.
But we cannot use this sort of data to measure long-term improvement.
The average level may change over time, and produce what we would 
ordinarily treat as "special causes" without it meaning anything.
This is because the tendency to complain changes over time: as soon as
a standard of service becomes the accepted norm, people judge what they
get by that, not by how much it has improved.

"The customer only expects what you and your competitors have led him
to expect. He is a quick learner".


David Kerridge

BDA Scotland

dfk@abdn.ac.uk

=========================================================================


 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Barker in a Deming context
sta010@abdn.ac.uk
Thu, 23 May 96 12:08:54 BST
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
The idea of a paradigm shift, as explained by Thomas Kuhn, and in the
Joel Barker tapes, is a very important one: but I noticed that Dr Deming
seemed to avoid the term. I never heard him say why, or even express any
views against the concept, so this is speculation on my part.

The problem with the Deming Philosophy is not just that it goes against
the accepted view of the world. It does, but there are other, and perhaps
more serious obstacles. There are, in the way organisations now work,
definite obstacles to seeing clearly. These are in the short-term pressures
that are inevitable, but which many systems increase, in the reward systems,
and in the very organisational structures.

Until these system problems are changed, we will not find a sudden change
of outlook sweeping through the business world, as new scientific paradigms
have swept through the scientific world. So although I can see close
parallels between the mental change that results from a scientific
revolution (which the Deming Philosophy is) and the Deming transformation,
they may not be the same thing. A far-sighted individual, by changing
the system that he or she controls, can change what people in it see.
"A system cannot understand itself". Evidence, and even open-mindedness,
is not enough.


David Kerridge

British Deming Association Scotland

dfk@abdn.ac.uk

==========================================================================


[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Re: Deming applied to Real Estate?
leaders@gulftel.com (James McKinley)
Thu, 23 May 1996 09:31:11 -0500 (CDT)
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
>We got a call from someone needing information on the application
>of Deming principles and philosophy to the area of real estate
>sales.
>
>Anyone have any experience or thoughts on this application?
>
>Jim Clauson
>DEN Moderator

The application of Deming theory to a Real Estate sales organization is very
straight forward. Most Real Estate sales organizations can be classified as
"private sector, small service" with many organizational issues falling into
"common categories" often faced by service organizations. In the US, the
industry has promoted the concept of sales person as an independent
contractor or "you are in business for yourself within our business" (I am
not aware of practice outside the US and Canada). Competition is generally
very high among the employees of these systems, therefore suboptimization is
high, "everything" is seen as special cause ("Who's fault is this?" instead
of "What is at fault?"). Top management can study the System of Profound
Knowledge with the aim of personal transformation and then proceed to
construct a management application from the theory that transforms their
unique organization. The shift from adversarial internal competition to
theory, prediction and using data is generally a struggle and will require
the examination of many beliefs using Dr. Deming's philosophy and theory (a
review of Taylor's" scientific management", the Sloan extensions of Taylor
and B. F. Skinner will be useful in this examination of present management
beliefs). If this question is directed to the application of Deming
philosophy by an individual Real Estate salesperson, start with the study of
the System of Profound Knowledge with the aim: personal transformation.
In a "former life" I earned my living in Real Estate sales/management and
more recently have worked with Real Estate sales organizations in
understanding and applying the Deming System of Profound Knowledge.
Hope the above was helpful.

----

Jim McKinley   Excellence in Leadership   leaders@gulftel.com
721 N. McKenzie St.  Suite 2  Foley, Al.  36535-3542  (Gump Country)

======================================================================


 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Re: Grading Providers and Teachers
Kromkowski@aol.com
Thu, 23 May 1996 12:30:02 -0400
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              
In a message dated 96-05-22 15:39:44 EDT, you write about grading and
teaching, etc.:

This subject recently came up with my wife who is finishing up her
dissertation (in part dealing with Deming's ideas) in Managment and Org. Beh.
at U of Md. (The source of much of my knowledge.)  One of the things that we
concluded was that part of the problem is that there is a misidentification
of students as customers.  Students are the product, the customers are the
businesses who hire them _and_ society.

Grading, of course, is in great part misunderstanding of variation.  As a
result it might be no more than "advertising" or the "inspected by Numer 16"
sticker.

John D. Kromkowski
Attorney at Law
The Jefferson Bldg. -- Suite 103
105 W. Chesapeake Ave.
Towson, MD   21204

Tel. 410 821 6116
Fax 410 828 0708
also Kromkowski@aol.com

============================================================================


[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              

Re[2]: Grading Providers and Teachers
tpowers@uscsumter.uscsu.sc.edu (Tom Powers)
Thu, 23 May 96 17:08:15 EST
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Peter Rose wrote""""""""""""""""""""""
Again it is more difficult if someone is being educated rather than
 trained i.e. they have no idea of the subject matter that they need to learn.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""end quote"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


""""""""""""""""""""''and then says"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
  This is only true when the (expert) teacher takes the position that I know 
more than you and I know what is good for you and you will learn it.  In fact 
this same attitude from doctors does not wash with me either; I want to know 
what the options are and why a particular one has been choosen.
I am not a teacher or expert in education, but I believe that what I am 
advocating is pupil centred learning, rather than teacher centred teaching.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""end quote"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

     is there not a contradiction in these two passages? If, indeed, the 
     process is education rather than training, and the student does not 
     know exactly where he or she is expecting to go, how can the 
     relationship be other than that the teacher knows and the student 
     doesn't? How can such terms as "student-centered" and 
     "teacher-centered" have meaning when the analogy no longer holds?

     In fact, in circumstances where the student is not in a position to 
     know what he or she needs to know, the teacher had BETTER be able to 
     say "I know what is good for you." Otherwise, neither knows.
     
     Better, I think to begin with a teacher who attempts to help the 
     student discover what he or she needs to know, to discover how to 
     learn it, and then to learn it. Is this "teacher-centered?" Yes. Look 
     who controls the process. Look who leads. Look who's in a position to 
     structure the process, and who knows what needs to be known. Is it 
     student-centered? Yes, for look who's doing the learning, and look how 
     much the student becomes -- more and more as the process continues -- 
     an active agent.
     
Tom Powers
Professor of History
The University of South Carolina at Sumter
TPOWERS@USCSUMTER.USCSU.SC.EDU


========================================================================


[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Re: Grading Providers and Teachers
Dan Schkolnik <75104.413@CompuServe.COM>
23 May 96 16:01:06 EDT
[Next of thread]              
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
It seems that the best a student could hope to know is that the subject matter
(s)he was originally interested in was, in fact discussed or studied during the
course.  I offer that it isn't until some time after leaving the class, when the
graduate has need for the information, that they may assess it's relevance or
accuaracy.  Since the survey I'm referencing is passed out before the students
leave the classroom, the best they would be able to say is that the material of
interest was or was not discussed.  I've looked back at all too many such
situations wherein material was discussed, but information provided was
incomplete or inaccurate.

As for the doctor/patient relationship, I agree that we lay people ought strive
to be informed receivers of care.  Anybody who blindly accepts treatment is
either in a coma or a fool.  However, even the most informed patient must
concede that they are visiting a physician solely based on that person's
posession of greater knowledge of health care.  

Let me also put forth that I assume that the purpose of a report card being
issued and tallyed by a managed-care organization would be to assess
physician-to-physician variance in cost or medical effectiveness.  I have an
acquaintance, a nurse, whose job at an HMO was to evaluate these surveys and
compile their results.  While she was blessed with 20/20 hindsight, she was
still seperated in time and space from the patient, and devoid of information
such as the presentation of extraneous symptoms and other circumstancial
miscues.  In all, she could do, at best, a haphazard job of deciding whether or
not the doctor got the diagnosis right the first time or each of several other
statistics being calculated.  I don't mean to say that such an assessment is
impossible--there are plenty of mathematical tools with which to perform such
stratified, multi-variate regressions.  On the other hand, I can see no
alternative but to contact providers and do a case-by-case review in order to
fully understand how much of the delta can be assigned to physician-to-physician
variation and how much needs to be assigned to other variables in the equation.
My gripe is that this is not the sort of assessment that's being done.  Instead,
we gather the numbers which are easy to collect and do simple, two-variable
regressions and call it a day.  With weak data (and no data is perfect under the
best circumstances) one cannot help but make erroneous corrections to the
system.  Coming soon to a funnel near you--managed health care!

==========================================================================



[Next of thread]              
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Re: DEN Aim - revisited
ParetoKid@aol.com
Fri, 24 May 1996 09:33:41 -0400
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
I agree with Ian. The aim still serves well. As needs and topics wax and wane
people will self-organize without a need to change overall aim.

Ned Hamson, editor: The Journal for Quality and Participation
Association for Quality and Participation, 801-B W. 8th St., Suite 501,
Cincinnati, OH 45203
Tel: 513-381-1979 Fax: 513-381-0070
e-mail: ParetoKid@aol.com
"This is the time... We are the people... Let's work together... Now!"
On vision... "What you see is what you get!" ---- Noble philosopher: F.
Wilson 
http://newciv.org/worldtrans/comqual.html
European representative: Peter Beerten, Belgium Consultancy Group: Tel:
011-32-02-569-0222/Fax: 011-32-02-569-7480
e-mail: Peter.Beerten@ping.be
Vri, 24 mei 1996 

========================================================================


[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Re: Grading Providers and Teachers
Martin Leckie 
Fri, 24 May 1996 14:35:54 +0100 (BST)
[Next of thread]              
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
John Kromkowski - The product of an educational system is the learning,and
not the student,IMHO. The customer is the student and society.

=======================================================================


[Next of thread]              
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Re[2]: Grading Providers and Teachers
tpowers@uscsumter.uscsu.sc.edu (Tom Powers)
Fri, 24 May 96 06:57:06 EST
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""John Kromkowski wrote""""""""""""""""""""""
One of the things that we
concluded was that part of the problem is that there is a misidentification
of students as customers.  Students are the product, the customers are the
businesses who hire them _and_ society.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""end quote"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


     Oh Dear!
     
     This is even worse than "students are customers." At least customers 
     have SOME knowledge and SOME power of choice.
     
     Students are neither customers nor products. They are human beings. A 
     university is not a factory. Classes are not stations on an assembly 
     line. Students do not come in as raw material nor leave as finished 
     products. Education is not something done TO students by universities.
     
     The entire analogy is bankrupt!
     
     First, students are human beings -- variable, fallible, imperfect, 
     capable, and creative. No two are exactly alike. They are not pieces 
     of sheet metal to be stamped into a standard shape under conditions in 
     which variations in outcome are seen as flaws.
     
     Second, students are active agents. In theory, they are the major 
     participant in their own education, through taking initiative in the 
     process. In fact, they are the major participant in their own 
     education, if not by taking initiative than by deciding NOT to take 
     initiative, or by deciding to put their energies on other priorities 
     than their education, or by deciding not to decide. The student is not 
     a passive item to be shaped. He or she is the single most important 
     active agent in the process.
     
     Education must involve interaction among the student, fellow students, 
     teachers, and the university environment. Students are partners, 
     active partners, in an interactive process. They are not "done to." 
     And they are never "done." They are not customers, and they are not 
     products. If anything, they are explorers, some of whom may choose not 
     to explore but simply try to go along for the ride. 
     
     I read this list precisely because I find many ideas associated with 
     Deming to be useful to me as an educator. But this particular line of 
     thought, attempting to apply principles by inappropriate analogy, is 
     entirely fallacious. Surely there are better ways to approach this 
     issue than in such simplistic fashion.
     
Tom Powers
Professor of History
The University of South Carolina at Sumter
TPOWERS@USCSUMTER.USCSU.SC.EDU

============================================================================



[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

The Aim of a System
John Woods 
Fri, 24 May 1996 09:50:36 -0500
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              
Peter Rose wrote about the following message:
>> I have had a CEO say to me that his customers are the shareholders.
>> He hires people to look after the real customers but his job is to
>> look after the shareholders.  Implicit in this is that he has no real
>> interest in the product as long as it makes money.  

I am not going to blame CEOs for saying such short-sighted stuff as this,
but I don't agree with it completely.  Like those who live in Plato's
parable of the cave, they see what they see.  Given the system they operate
in, this is the assertion we can expect.  However...
>From my perspective, I see businesses as social institutions, created by
society to fill various needs of segments of society.  They are not separate
from society but inextricably a part of it.  They are not in business to
make a profit.  They are in business to serve customers.  Profit is a
measure of the quality of that service to customers and provides the means
that will allow the company to stay in business and continue delivering that
value.  

>From still another perspective, we could say that the purpose of businesses
is to create a mutually beneficial relationship between themselves and the
customers they serve.  They fulfill this purpose by creating goods and
services that some segment of society values highly enough to purchase at a
price that will cover all the company's costs.  

That last sentence is important to consider, for I like to look at profit as
one more business cost.  I call it the "cost of keeping the organization
whole."  If a company delivers outputs that customers don't value enough to
cover all the costs involved, the company will not survive, at least in its
current form.  So profit is important, but it is not the purpose of the
organization, but a measure of how well it serves its customers and the
society of which it is a part and gives it the resources to continue doing that.

Peter Drucker and Theodore Levitt (among others) have often written about
the mistake of believing that the purpose of a business is to make a profit.
This purpose does not tell a manager what to do to make a profit that will
allow the company to survive in the long run.  What it suggests, instead is
that we need to take advantage of others to our benefit and their detriment.
Sometimes this causes companies to get in trouble, either with the state or
their customers and go out of business.  Other times, it just means that
there will be no long-lasting relationships necessary for long (or even
medium) term growth and profitability and thus cause the eventual demise of
the operation.

On the other hand, let's say understanding that you understand your mission
is, using your talents and resources, to create a mutually beneficial
relationship between your business and your customers and society as a
whole.   Well, this does give you sound direction for creating a strategy
that will help you gain the paying customers that will allow you to pay all
your costs of doing business (including the cost of keeping the company
whole and even growing--profit).  

So, while we don't have to be too critical of comments such as the one by
the CEO above (he wouldn't say that if he understood the implications of
such statements), we don't have to buy into this.  We can understand, as
Deming did, that a business is a subsystem of a larger social system, that
it has a role to play in that social system, and by contributing in a
productive way, it will gain the resources (profit) it needs to continue to
play its role.  Otherwise, the forces of society will eventually expunge it
as no longer contributing to society's welfare.  

John Woods
jwoods@execpc.com

===========================================================================


 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              

Role of students (?)
clauson@deming.ces.clemson.edu (List Moderator Account)
Fri, 24 May 1996 10:55:53 -0400 (EDT)
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              
Moderator's request:

On the issue of the role or status of students, i.e, customer, product...

I also run the list for quality in higher education.  The debate on what 
*is* a student in the traditional quality model of customer/supplier/
product has been on-going for several years.  For those interested, I
can provide instructions on how to search that discussion list's archives
on the topic.

I would humbly request that we accept Tom Power's statement that students
are human beings -- and leave it at that.  From my experience on my other
list, the debate rages, people get personal and/or defensive, and the 
thread degerates with no solution.

I would prefer not to see that happen here.

Thanks,

Jim Clauson
DEN Moderator

=========================================================================

-- 



 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              

Re: DEN Aim - revisited
Arline Berman <102021.457@CompuServe.COM>
24 May 96 11:14:18 EDT
[Next of thread]              
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
Jim:

"becoming a catalyst for a learning community"  

This aim sounds like a worthy one to me.  To grow Deming's ideas in a learning
community would meet my needs and stimulate ongoing discussions.

Arline Berman
Quality Initiatives
102021.457@compuserve.com

========================================================================



[Next of thread]              
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Re: Grading Providers and Teachers
RonDavison@aol.com
Fri, 24 May 1996 12:56:32 -0400
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
In a message dated 96-05-22 16:47:12 EDT, someone wrote:

> If [people attending a course] have clearly identified what skills they
need to do their >job better then they should have clear objectives for
themselves in attending the course >in the first place.  They should have
targets and standards - targets on what they want >to achieve in improving
their performance and standards to be attained in their training. 

This model of learning really does rest in the old model of preparing folks
for a predictable world.  As Deming might say, "How could they know?  How
could they?"  Or, how could a learner know what standards he might reach or
what he should learn?

Deming ridiculed work standards as something that doubled the cost of getting
work done.  Can you imagine what he would do with learning standards?

The learning described above comes from a place of what one already knows.
 When you approach a learning experience already knowing what it is you
should learn, how much can you really learn?   It is that kind of "listening
for" a message that, in my opinion, turned Deming's message into TQM.

--
Ron

========================================================================


[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

RE: DEN Aim - revisited
"Kerr, Donald" 
Fri, 24 May 1996 10:03:00 -0700
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
The DEN to me provides an extremely powerful tool for learning and
challenging our own assumptions.  By engaqing in dialogue and
double-loop learning we can overcome the "Closed System" barrier within
the Deming Community in understanding and expanding SPK.

I am truly amazed with the amount of diversity in interpretation of the
Deming philosophy.  Hearing perspectives from engineers, statisticians,
history teachers, psychologists, police officers, etc. is an incredible
way to learn...much quicker than we can all separately!  This is very
heathly learning for me.  I believe the DEN has the potential of
contributing to building an improved and shared understanding of SPK
that goes beyond the individual contributions of Deming and each of us.

For me it is indeed a free learning community that is greater than the
sum of it parts.  It destroys any implicit or explicit established
Deming hierarchy and opens the doors for all to learn from each other,
without judgement or each person worth, understanding, or knowledge. 
Interpretations are no longer just handed down from the top and well
planned seminars or periodic conferences.  Creativity (right or wrong)
flows much more freely not being constrained by closed-system appeals to
established "masters" or quotes or examples.

To me the DEN is the first and only manifestation of a true Deming
Community.  It is  belongingness.  I would like to see the aim revised
to reflect the essence of what I'm trying to say here.

Have a Great Adventure!
Don Kerr
 ----------
=======================================================================
 --




[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Re: Re[2]: Grading Providers and Teachers
collinsc@host003.mis.pinellas.k12.fl.us (Chris Collins)
Fri, 24 May 1996 16:22:36 -0400
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
In response to Tom Powers:

You said everything but "student is the worker in the educational system."

They must be given the same role as the worker in any other organization:
respect, voice, choice, control. They must be nurtured and trained to work
together for common aims and to see themselves as a part of a larger
system.  They must not be blamed, and ranked, and inspected as a means of
putting the responsibility for success on the individual and not leadership
(the teacher, analgous to the manager) and the system.

We, in education ( I am a 24 year veteran k-12 educator) must begin to look
at the system and not the worker for improvement.  All of our result
measures are aimed at the wrong thing--individual ranking.  When we begin
to measure the system's ability to deliver its aims and not the
individual's ability, we may see the kind of improvement we all desire.

As Dr. Deming frequently reminded us, "There is no shortage of good
workers."  He also said in almost the same breath, "There is no shortage of
good students."


In education the student is primarily the worker in the system.

Christine C. Collins, Quality Facilitator, Quality Academy,
Pinellas County Schools  P.O. Box 2942  Largo, FL  34649-2942
813-588-6295  FAX 813-588-6530

============================================================================



[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Re: DEN Aim - revisited
"Anton O. Tolman, Ph.D." 
Fri, 24 May 1996 16:37:18 -0700 (MST)
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              
On May 23, Colston Sanger wrote:

> When I read the current DEN Aim, what I see is a lot of long,
> abstract words - and what I feel is `I don't understand what this
> means'. So maybe (as Jim says) it would be useful to work on an
> operational definition of the aim.
> 
> Another concern is that I sense a certain circularity in the way
> that the DEN aim is `to promote the Institute's focus and
> objectives', and the aim of the WEDI (at least in the version I
> have before me) is to `foster understanding of of the Deming
> System of Profound Knowledge TM...' but we don't seem to spell
> out what that means for us, now.

I agree with Colston.  While I think that the DEN is operating 
overall in a functional manner, Jim's remarks from the WEDI 
conference, if nothing else, indicate that there is potential there 
for greater things.  

The question is -- do we want to be involved in a catalyst?  If we, 
as subscribers, are the customers, then what do we want from the 
organization (DEN)?  I know that as a neophyte to this area, what I 
want from the DEN is information -- is the development of contacts 
with other neophytes, is sage advise from those who are long on this 
road ahead of me, and for support from others going through the 
journey to try and achieve quality not only in our own companies, but 
in America at large.  

Maybe we should start even before that:  are _we_ the customers?  Or 
is there another group?  

The other concern I had about the current DEN aim is that it refers 
to the Institute, but it would seem more appropriate and useful to 
have an independent aim, one that fits with the Institute's aims or 
supports it, but to refer to another organization as justification 
for our own organization seems tautalogical.  

Anton O. Tolman, Ph.D.
Director, Psychological Services
Director, Program Services
Wyoming State Hospital
P.O. Box 177
Evanston, WY  82931-0177
Anton@wsh.state.wy.us
(307) 789-3464
---------------    

=========================================================================


[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              

Re: RE: DEN Aim - revisited
ParetoKid@aol.com
Sat, 25 May 1996 09:10:06 -0400
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
Re: learning community remarks and adding them to aim of DEN. To those who
experience it as such, great. But to name it such by adding to the aim, will
perhaps make is a forced aim. A network such as this should be able to
accommodate many different needs. Adding to the current aim may well
encourage some to leave. When you begin adding more names (specifics) to
something, I believe you begin to box it in -- not open it up.

Ned Hamson, editor: The Journal for Quality and Participation
Association for Quality and Participation, 801-B W. 8th St., Suite 501,
Cincinnati, OH 45203
Tel: 513-381-1979 Fax: 513-381-0070
e-mail: ParetoKid@aol.com
"This is the time... We are the people... Let's work together... Now!"
On vision... "What you see is what you get!" ---- Noble philosopher: F.
Wilson 
http://newciv.org/worldtrans/comqual.html
European representative: Peter Beerten, Belgium Consultancy Group: Tel:
011-32-02-569-0222/Fax: 011-32-02-569-7480
e-mail: Peter.Beerten@ping.be
Zat, 25 mei 1996 

=====================================================================


 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Grading and variation 
jkaliste@skipjack.bluecrab.org
Sat, 25 May 1996 17:48:21 -0400 (EDT)
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
>
>Grading, of course, is in great part misunderstanding of variation.  As a
>result it might be no more than "advertising" or the "inspected by Numer 16"
>sticker.
>
>John D. Kromkowski
>
>
>============================================================================
>       I like to feel that the process is my customer.  Unless I do my part,
the next customer inherits a problem that they are unaware of.  They may not
understand what my role is, or how to correct my failure.  They may be held
responsable for my failure.  In any event, the system suffers.
        Teachers teach, graders grade.  How can what I knew years ago have a 
bearing on what I know now?
        I am going to propose that my employer eliminate Annual Ratings as 
such. They realise they are non functional, but feel a need to label people.
I believe it is called status equalibration.  If I am superior in one status,
I need to feel superior in all. This ranking leads to fear.
        I hope to have in house ranking of teams that will replace personal 
rankings.  We observe what we are trained to observe and report what our ego
feels will further our careers.  We may be honest enough to describe our faults
if we do not identify them as our own.  We have a system that tracks our
attendance at  training programs.  Succesful completetion of in house,
college credit, computer training, etc., will result in the generation of
a rating. There will be no negatives.  We will all start equal every year.
No one will fail.  Some will move ahead. It will be a superior rating .
It will become an honor. This will not generate raises,only promotional 
consideration.  Any pay grade advance will come from promotions.
        Raises will be step increments until the end of the pay grade. They will
not be denied, and are annual.  Performance will be the sole criteria until 
a certain level is reached.  Then testing is required.
        Please advise.
                                    Thanks,
                                            John

jkaliste@skipjack.bluecrab.org

=======================================================================


 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

DEN back on the air!
clauson@deming.ces.clemson.edu (List Moderator Account)
Wed, 29 May 1996 00:57:59 -0400 (EDT)
[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              
DEN Subscribers:

We have had systems problems at Clemson - an interaction of forces in action!

No mail has been processed since about 10AM Sunday, 26JUN96.

Also during this time, you may have had messages bounce back to you.  Please
re-try now that we are back up and they should process just fine.

Thanks to Del Kimbler and the systems folks at Clemson, we are on the air again.

Jim Clauson
DEN Moderator

============================================================================

-- 




[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              

Purpose of Education
jr1crow@mindspring.com (James Robert Crow)
Sat, 25 May 1996 06:50:20 -0500
[Next of thread]             
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
        Twenty-five years ago, or thereabouts, I was taking a course titled
"The Sociology of Work" at Georgia State University.  One evening the
professor asked the group, "How many of you are here to get an education?"
After some consideration a very few hands were raised.  He then asked, "How
many of you are here to get a degree?"  Almost every hand in the room went
up immediately.  "Yes, he said, You are here to get that union card."  The
degree will open doors for you that the absence of the degree will not."
"If you happen to learn something in the process so much the better."

     He then went on to talk about the difference between training and
education.  He considered courses in accounting, business, english, math, to
be training, while sociology, phychology, and cources of this nature to be
education.  His reasoning was that these educational courses were designed
to challenge accepted ways of looking at the world, or challenging one's
world view.

     When I graduated from that institution Dr. Noah Langsdale (president of
the university) gave the commencement address.  He spoke on the role of
education in society.  He view was that the role of education was to lead
out  of darkness, to illuminate.  To lead out of darkness is difficult as
any of you who have attempted to implement Dr. Deming's concepts within an
organization can attest.  However is not Dr. Deming attempting to
illuminate, or to shed light on management practices that are not effective,
and replace them with more effective practices.

     I met Dr Langsdale while working as a gate agent for Delta Airlines.  I
had boarded him on a flight for Columbia, SC.  The flight was delayed while
we waited for passengers and bags from another flight.  The weather was bad,
cold and rainey.  Shortly after boarding Dr. Langsdale, I was advised that
one of the passengers was complaining about the delay.  I relayed a message
to the flight attendant that we were waiting for luggage from an incoming
flight and that we should be ready to depart in a few minutes.  As sometimes
happens, the weather was delaying incoming flights, and we were still
waiting for the bags 15 minutes later, when I looked up to see Dr Langsdale
directly in front of my counter.

     Dr. Langsdale was an All American tackle for the University of Alabama,
and he had not srunk in size since graduation.  He said, "Do you know Frank
Seaton?"  At that time I didn't know who I was addressing, and I somewhat
reluctantly admitted that I did.  Frank was one of our passenger service
agents, and had in fact brought Dr. Langsdale to the gate.  Dr. Langsdale
was like a big angry bear.  He then said.  "You tell the GD, SOB that when I
get back to Atlanta I am going to grab him and rip him to pieces."  As he
said this he demonstrated with excellent body language just how this process
would take place.  I informed him that I would be glad to relay that
message.  He double checked to make sure that I had the message then went
out and reboarded the flight, which left shortly thereafter.  I promply
called Frank and relayed Dr. Langsdales message.  His response was to advise
me to tell Dr. Langsdale that he should keep his mouth shut, or he would
come down there and pull him off of the flight.  It then became obvious to
me that these two people knew each other quite well and were having fun
making these threats which neither had any intentions of carrying out.  In
fact if I had reacted with undue alarm at Dr. Langsdale's threat, I can
imagine them both having a good laugh at my expense.

     A study of Dr. Deming is in my opinion a combination of education and
training.  You must first understand the underlying concepts, and how they
challenge conventional thinking, you then must learn how to apply them to an
organization ,and how the organization will be transformed by this experiance.

     Some personal thoughts on the role of education.  Education should
challenge accepted ways of seeing the world.  Students should have their
existing world view challenged and expanded by the educational experience.
The role of the educator is to create the environment which makes it safe
for the student to do this.  If we expand on this then we could say that it
is the role of society to create the environment which enables the educator
to stimulate the thinking of the students.

     Sadly this seems to be getting lost in today's society.  Recently Cobb
County (just North of Atlanta) deleated any reference to evolution in the
forth grade text books because a parent objected on religious grounds.  The
boards reasoning was that since there was no requirement that the subject be
included then it could be eliminated and everyone would be happy.  I believe
this could be an example of reacting to a special cause, rather than looking
at the system.

     One of the things I believe education should teach is to question,
question, question.  We don't ask enough questions.  Perhaps this is what
Dr. Deming had in mind when he said "Drive out Fear!"  Create an environment
which makes it safe to question the accepted way of doing things.  
Robert Crow
President, The Crow Group
jr1crow@mindspring.com

============================================================================



[Next of thread]             
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Barker in a Deming Context
Ian Griffiths <100326.1264@CompuServe.COM>
28 May 96 15:08:23 EDT
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
With reference to David Kerridge's posting of 24 May:

The essence of David's argument seems to be the need for *LEADERSHIP* to effect
the necessary changes. That is vital -- and nothing much will happen without it.
Of course it is a new sort of leadership that is called for, one that listens
more -- and genuinely -- to the followers. 

Although David is right to emphasise that the business world is, for the most
part, moving in a way that seems unfavourable to the changes we are seeking, I'd
like to advance the idea that the hitherto slow rate of adoption of the 'Deming
transformation' may speed up quite soon. There is always great resistance to
change in human affairs, in both the scientific and business fields (and many
others too!).

It is sometimes deeply discouraging to face the reality of the management
(including government) systems that we have today. But It is not just the
members of the 'Deming community' that are seeking change.The failure of current
management cultures to cope well with many important needs of society (eg
encouraging creativity and learning, adjustment to the finite resources of our
world) will generate mounting pressure for deep change within a much wider
community. Although that pressure is still diffuse, it offers a fair prospect of
creating the conditions in which new leaders (David's 'far-sighted individuals')
can more easily tranform the way things get done. It still won't be easy an easy
task -- just a bit less Herculean task than it is at present. 

The Deming philosophy has had only a minor influence during the current economic
cycle (roughly the last 50 years). But it may become the conventional wisdom in
the next cycle. My own guess (you cannot really tell these things till later) is
that we are somwhere about the 'bottoming-out' period that marks the end of one
cycle (hence a comparatively low rate of change and innovation at present,
accompanied by great pressure to save costs through downsizing and
risk-avoidance). If so, the next decade may see a burst of change, with much
more vigorous adoption of new ideas. We may then see a rate of Deming
transformation that would amaze us right now.

Ian Griffiths
email: 100326.1264@compuserve.com
tel: (44) 01383 872937

===========================================================================



 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Values and Performance
Ian Griffiths <100326.1264@CompuServe.COM>
28 May 96 15:08:18 EDT
[Next of thread]             
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             
In response to Bill Reynold's question of 22 May:

Part of the problem is that the data points (what you would ideally like to
measure) are  
so often fuzzy and subjective. 

To apply SPC you need to find something which is a sort of proxy for whatever 
you really want to improve -- and this new thing must readily be measurable. So
if your 
concern fundamentally is with X, but X is too fuzzy to use directly in SPC, you
need to 
find some Y which you can use directly. 

AND you need to have good grounds for believing that an improvement in Y will be

accompanied by an improvement in X. So if you work at improving Y, you know you
will 
be improving X.

Here X might be something fuzzy (but important) like 'communication' and Y might
be
'customer problems attributable to communication deficiencies'.

I don't mean that this approach is easy. Sometimes maybe. Far more often you'll
have to 
think hard about how to go about it. There may, for example, be practical
problems with 
measuring 'customer problems attributable to communication deficiencies'. You
are likely
to need to be careful about operational definitions of whatever Y you select.
The link 
between X and Y is sometimes not clearcut, and you may have to follow your
intuition here
(but that should be made explicit!). You may find that it helps to apply systems
thinking 
concepts to help you to unravel the issues in very people-centred processes (for
example 
it may be that the relationship between X and Y will change with time because of
interactions
between X and Y -- and maybe the effects of other variables too).

In short, it is likely to be messy, but worthwhile.

Ian Griffiths
100326.1264@compuserve.com
tel: (44) 01383 872937

=========================================================================



[Next of thread]             
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]              
[First by author]             

Re: Grading Providers and Teachers
Ian Griffiths <100326.1264@CompuServe.COM>
28 May 96 14:56:54 EDT
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
From:	Ian Griffiths, 100326,1264
TO:	INTERNET:den.list@deming.ces.clemson.edu
DATE:	27/05/96 22:08

RE:	Grading Providers and Teachers

In response to Peter Rose's comments of 22 May:

This is a difficult area. There is no easy answer.

It is surely most important that the 'teacher' listens for feedback in order to
improve his material and delivery. So whatever else, the teacher (and the
educational establishment) really should be motivated primarily by a desire to
learn about the learning process -- not to rank teachers or students.

What we have to be careful about is the validity of taking such feedback at face
value -- and the varying effects of timescale.

If well-defined 'narrow' skills are being transferred then the feedback is
comparatively straightforward. The trainees are in a strong position to assess
what they have experienced. The time delay in gaining benefit from the training
is short. Feedback obtained at the end of the training session may well be
directly useful.

With education the problems are very much harder. Here it is not so much skills,
as a new viewpoint, that is involved. Resistance to this learning is often
*VERY* high. The 'trainee' (not a very good term here) usually has to put
together several new ideas, integrate them effectively, and thereby enter a new
culture. That is what sometimes happens when someone is exposed to the Deming
philosophy. Occasionally a person 'sees' the new vision all in a flash (some of
the accounts of the impact of the Red Beads experiment sound like a religious
conversion). Far more often the conclusion of the process is delayed till long
after the training session has notionally been completed. The same person may
provide very different feedback at the end of the training session than (say)
six months or three years later. The 'teaching' problem here is so much deeper
and more extensive, part of a 'larger system' with many more interactions before
it can usefully be regarded as complete.

You can see this effect working strongly when people are exposed to 'Deming
philosophy'. There is immense resistance to this new learning. It is not that
the ideas are difficult. They are simple and were established many years ago.
BUT for those not already 'converted' (nearly everybody in the world!) there is
a lot of unlearning to do first. It is the unlearning that is hard.

It is comparatively easy to teach SPC (a single skill). Even then, fear of
numbers is a barrier to learning. But contrast the task of 'teaching' SPC to
that of 'converting' someone to see the world through SPK (a cultural
viewpoint). 

When teaching (say) a straightforward statistical technique, it is reasonable to
look for rapid feedback from students. But when the educational 'message' is
deeper and broader, and carries the need for substantial unlearning, we need to
be very wary of confusing 'noise' amidst the signals carried in early feedback. 

Another way of putting this is to say that a true leader is someone who
*GENUINELY* listens to his followers; and a good teacher is someone who
*GENUINELY* listens to his students. Both have to listen carefully to extract
valid signals from accompanying noise. Sometimes they must wait a long time for
the most important signals. And always they have to present a vision, map out a
path for others to follow -- you cannot 'spoonfeed' a dose of education.
Sometimes governments and administrators behave as though this is what they want
to achieve. But education is not really like that at all.

Ian Griffiths
email: 100326.1264@compuserve.com
tel: (44) 01383 872937

=========================================================================



 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

RE: OQPF and WEDI conference announcements
Jim Clauson 
Wed, 29 May 1996 00:07:16 -0400 (EDT)
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
Jim,

RE: WEDI announcements

I am copying Bill Ratcliff on this e-mail.

While we know the dates for the OCT96 WEDI Conference, it will be *at 
least* after the design council meeting on 07/8JUN96 and the following 
Board meeting 08/09JUN96 that any sort of agenda will be available.    
It *could* be finalized at a later Board meeting.

The planning for the OCT96 conference *is* on the agenda for this next 
meeting.  I assume we submit a recommendation to the Board, which 
meets after we leave.

Bill,

Can I ask that you e-mail Jim as soon as you receive the final agenda?  
He will be helping us communicate it electronically in his area.

Thanks and thanks,

CyberQ-Guy out.



 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Aim
jkaliste@skipjack.bluecrab.org
Wed, 29 May 1996 17:32:54 -0400 (EDT)
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
        It is written here that the aim of the Deming Eletronic Network is
to promote understanding of the ontological econometric discourse known as
the System of Profound Knowledge to the People of the Earth.

                                   Thanks,
                                      John
jkaliste@skipjack.bluecrab.org

[John:  Translation??]

===========================================================================



[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]              
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Mr. Gingrich's question
mbbjr@VNET.IBM.COM
Wed, 29 May 96 18:10:12 CDT
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
As a DENizen and lurker during the past 18 months, I have watched with
dismay as Newt Gingrich has received some credit for understanding
Deming's teachings.  So I have written a brief essay to explain my
feeling.  Warning: Do not take this fault-finding as an expression of
my political views.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

In one lecture of his course, "Renewing American Civilization," as
reported in *Quality Progress*, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich
said, "Everyone can contribute.  If your job isn't so important that
you have to do it brilliantly, why do we keep you?"

This question, which seems both tough-minded and inspiring, actually
crumbles under the lightest analysis.  Worse yet, it suggests that
the Speaker, who so confidently summarizes Deming's teachings, really
doesn't understand them at all.

Consider some answers to the question.
1.  We keep you because the concept of brilliance doesn't even
    apply.  The man or woman who puts the wheels on a car near the
    end of an assembly line obviously has an important job.  How does
    this person perform brilliantly?  (To me, in this context,
    "perfect" does not equal "brilliant.")

2.  We keep you because brilliance, in essence an individual concept,
    may actually hurt team performance.  In his book, *Why You Lose At
    Bridge*, S. J. Simon describes a character he calls the Unlucky
    Expert.  This fellow always plays brilliantly in an absolute sense,
    but loses because his partners can rarely match his level of skill.
    In bidding, his elegant calls merely confuse his teammate; on defense,
    his attempts to deceive their opponents also deceive his partner.  So
    maybe one shouldn't call his play "brilliant" after all.

3.  And that leads to a third reason:  We keep you because, for
    nearly all jobs, we can't figure out an operational definition of
    brilliance.  Do we call the Unlucky Expert brilliant when paired
    with another expert, and not when paired with a novice?  At what
    level of his partner's skill does he become brilliant?  And how
    do we measure skill at bridge, anyway?  An operational definition
    requires that everyone get the same answer (within the limits of
    experimental variation), when he or she performs the operations.
    If we define brilliance with respect to a situation, we must also
    define the situation adequately.

Which brings up another problem:  Assessing a person's
performance as brilliant requires considering the context.
Rarely, if ever, does a person have complete control of the
context, that is, the system that he works in.  And if the system
influences brilliance, then how will you fault someone for not
performing brilliantly, at least part of the time?

But perhaps this amounts to picking nits.  Let's assume that
we can all agree on the meaning of the words in the Speaker's
question.  Have we gotten out of the woods yet?

Not at all.  The question emphasizes the job, the work package,
not the person doing it.  In *The Effective Executive*, which
Gingrich refers to, Drucker notes that if a job defeats two or
three people who had done well before, the problem lies in the
job, not the people.  If "you have to do it brilliantly," your
job has a poor design, for brilliant people, by definition, come
few and far between.  "The effective executive," says Drucker,
"...knows that the test of organization is not genius.  It is the
capacity to make common people achieve uncommon performance."

Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, we must consider the system aspect.
If everyone in an organization has to perform brilliantly just to make
it all work, what happens when one or several of these brilliant persons
quits?  The jobs that they HAD to perform brilliantly will, most likely,
not get done at all while Personnel finds new employees -- with
difficulty, I expect -- to fill them.  Or, a whole bunch of people
will do their jobs less than brilliantly while trying to cover the
vacant jobs.  Either way, the organization will plunge into deep trouble,
because the system has no resilience.  (I assume that doing a job
brilliantly takes up all a person's time and attention.  If not, then
the person could do it still more brilliantly.)

Finally, the question generates instant fear in me, and, I suspect,
would do so in most people, in direct opposition to Deming's
Point 8, "Drive out fear...."

Of course, the Speaker might have made a slip of the tongue, or pen, or
mind.  In the light of all the difficulties enumerated, however -- no
operational definitions, no consideration of systems aspects, and the
direct contravention of Point 8 -- I find that unlikely.  I call this
a Freudian-type slip, revealing that the Speaker does not understand or
does not accept Deming's philosophy.  Mr. Gingrich has profound know-
edge of politics, no doubt, but I consider his knowledge of Deming
superficial at best.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Matt Barkley, IBM Personal Systems Programming, mbbjr@vnet.ibm.com
Disclaimer:  I speak only for myself.  I don't even know IBM's views
on the subject of this posting.

====================================================================



[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Re: Mr. Gingrich's question
John Woods 
Thu, 30 May 1996 07:58:25 -0500
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              
I want to compliment Matt Barkley on his comments about Newt Gingrich's
understanding of TQM.  At the risk of revealing my political leanings, I
have long felt that TQM, with its basis on understanding the organization as
a system, was fundamentally at odds with the conservative political agenda
that focuses on individuals and a kind of every man and woman for themselves
mentality.  

We are all part of the system.  There is nothing we can do about that.
Whether we understand that does not change the fact of that membership.
However, whether we understand it or not will affect the performance of that
system.  Unfortunately, the conflicts, hypocrisy, and inefficiencies that so
characterize politics today are the direct result of a misunderstanding of
the systems concept.  Now maybe that's just the way it has to be with a
democratic system.  But I'm unwilling to buy that.  We can understand this
systems idea and use that as the foundation for making sound decisions and
taking intelligent actions in politics and every other human activity.  I
would submit that this is the foundation of everything that Deming was about.  

John Woods
Author, Speaker, Consultant
jwoods@execpc.com

P.S.  I have an article on the values of quality culture that are based on
understanding the organization as a system.  If you'd like to see this, send
me an e-mail message, and I will send you the article as an attached
Microsoft Word file.  

=========================================================================



[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]              

Re: Aim
David Young <100654.3270@CompuServe.COM>
30 May 96 04:19:49 EDT
[Next of thread]             
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
What is the aim of an aim?

Dave Young
100654.3270@compuserve.com

===========================================================================



[Next of thread]             
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Gingrich - just 'in the room?'
jr1crow@mindspring.com (James Robert Crow)
Thu, 30 May 1996 15:29:47 -0500
[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
I also question Mr. Gingrich's understanding of Dr. Deming teachings.  He
may have spent some time with Dr. Deming, but it is questionable that he
learned anything.  
Several years ago, in another life,  my secretary was going to be on
vacation for a week and I called the temp agency we worked with and asked
for a person to fill in.  "We have an excellent person that has all of these
skills."  They reeled off a long list of computers, and software this person
could do.  "I don't need all of that, I just need this."  "Well since you
are such a good customer, we would like to send you this person at a very
good rate. "  "Very well send her on Monday, so that she can have a week to
learn the position before she has to take it over."

On Monday the person reported, and things seemed to go well.  On toward the
end of the week I was out at the receptionist position when the temp was
questioning me regarding the kind of computer we had and the program it
used.  It was apparent from the conversation that she was going to add this
to her qualifications.  She then expressed some concern about being able to
answer the telephone, and use the computer to generate reports.  I expressed
confidence that she could do the work since she had such outstanding
qualifications.  However; her concern caused me concern and I asked her to
do a letter for me.  She couldn't do the letter, and it was very apparent
that she was unfamiluar with the computer and how it worked. Not just this
computer, but "computers."

I was upset with three people.  One was myself for not paying closer
attention to what was going on, my secretary for not telling me what was
going on, (her explaination was that this lady was very nice).  I believe my
responce was that nice doesn't cut it.  I need someone that can do the job.
I was also very unset with the temp agency for sending me this overqualified
person who couldn't do the job I needed.  I related the story about her
questioning me regarding our hard and software and that she planned to add
this to her qualifications.  Apparently if she had been in the same room
with it she adds it to her qualifications.  She was replaced with a less
qualified person that could do the job, the temp agency refunded our money,
we survived.

I feel the same way about Mr. Gingrich.  He may have been in the same room
with Dr. Deming, but not much learning took place, especially in the area of
systems.
Robert Crow
President, The Crow Group
jr1crow@mindspring.com

========================================================================



[Next of thread]              
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Aim - expanded
jkaliste@skipjack.bluecrab.org
Thu, 30 May 1996 17:39:41 -0400 (EDT)
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
        It is written here that the aim of the Deming Eletronic Network is
to promote understanding of the ontological econometric discourse known as
the System of Profound Knowledge to the People of the Earth.

                                  or
                                   
        It is written here that the aim of the Deming Electronic Network is
to promote understanding of the the philosophical study of the development,
nature, and application of statiscal techniques  to understand  and enhance the 
development of economics and ecomomies through theory developed by the power
of  
Dr. W. E. Deming's reasoning  to benefit the People of the Earth.

                              
                                            Thank's
                                                 John
jkaliste@skipjack.bluecrab.org

=========================================================================




 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Re: Mr. Gingrich
LNUSPTH1.RZYJ8C@gmeds.com
Fri, 31 May 96 07:55:23 EDT
[Next of thread]             
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
I am sure that Mr. Gingrich does not have a complete understanding of Dr. 
Deming's philosophy. It is probable that there would be some areas of 
disagreement. I have not heard Mr. Gingrich claim that he has a complete 
understanding of Dr. Deming's ideas.

When I look back over the past few years, I find that I do not hold many of the 
opinions that I once did, hopefully due to having gained new knowledge. I 
consider myself fortunate to not have been dismissed by some more knowledgeable 
people due to my relative state of "ignorance". I am sure that at times I have 
been sufficiently arrogant to deserve such dismissal. I hope I continue to be 
so fortunate (to not be dismissed!)

I think it would be helpful for us to offer help to Mr. Gingrich where there is 
interest and where we believe we have something to offer. We may find that Mr. 
Gingrich is prepared to return the favor.

Cheers, Ian Bradbury
lnuspth1.rzyj8c@gmeds.com

=========================================================================



[Next of thread]             
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Re: 14 Points and the Baldrige
collinsc@host003.mis.pinellas.k12.fl.us (Chris Collins)
Fri, 31 May 1996 08:23:21 -0400
[Next of thread]             
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
I am so pleased to read the comments of Jim Evans related to Deming and the
Baldrige.  And many thanks for the analysis of the categories mapped to the
14 points.  I am the district quality facilitator for a very large school
district in Florida (over 16,000 employees and 100,000 students.)  We have
been in transformation for the past 5 years.

We have used Deming's 14 points as the basis of every district-wide
systemic change we have made--and there have been many--systemic changes in
evaluation systems, strategic planning, training, hiring, orientation,
principal certification, decision making systems, systems assessment and of
course fundamental changes to curriculum and pedagogical methodology.

  At the same time, we have used the Baldrige as a framework for self
assessment throughout our system. This year we had over 90 schools and
departments VOLUNTARILY turn in written self assessments for analysis by a
team of 100 plus Baldrige-trained, community/school examiner consultants
who have become a part of our "system."  (This is significant community
partnership.)

If a Deming philosophy is the value system of the organization, Baldrige
can help ascertain the degree to which it is deployed and the degree to
which the system is integrated.  Our transformation has been led by Jim
Shipley who is a senior Baldrige Examiner.  We were the recipient of the
Florida Governor's Sterling Award for Quality in 1993.

While there continues to be great debate over the compatbility of the two
systems (and I would agree that ISO isn't even in the ballpark,) we are
most often too busy actually applying this stuff to get into the debate.
In the end, we are certain that we will be successful in fully integrating
a Deming philosophy by using Baldrige.  Those who believe that the systems
are mutually exclusive are in for a surprise when our district becomes the
first and largest metropolitan school district to fully transform.

Respectfully submitted,

Chris


==========================================================================

Christine C. Collins, Quality Facilitator, Quality Academy,
Pinellas County Schools  P.O. Box 2942  Largo, FL  34649-2942
813-588-6295  FAX 813-588-6530





[Next of thread]             
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

The Aim of DEN
David Young <100654.3270@CompuServe.COM>
31 May 96 04:29:43 EDT
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]            
[First by author]             
How about

	''To Learn, To Have Fun, To Make A Difference.''

					(unquote)

Dave Young
100654,3270@compuserve.com

=====================================================================



 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]             
[First of thread]            
[First by author]